Prepared by the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF

GEF/E/C.58/Inf.02/Rev.01 October 28, 2020 58th GEF Council Meeting June 2-3, 2020 Virtual Meeting

STRATEGIC COUNTRY CLUSTER EVALUATION: SAHEL AND SUDAN-GUINEA SAVANNA BIOMES

VOLUME I – MAIN REPORT (Prepared by the Independent Evaluation Office of the GEF)

VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations...... v Executive Summary...... vi 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Evaluation Background, Purpose, Objectives, Scope, and Methods ...... 1 1.2 The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna Biomes ...... 4 1.3 International Environmental Conventions...... 7 2. GEF’s Engagement in the two Biomes ...... 10 2.1 Portfolio ...... 10 Funding ...... 10 Modality...... 11 Agencies...... 13 Focal Areas ...... 16 2.2 Relevance to National Environmental Challenges...... 18 3. Results and Sustainability...... 22 3.1 Performance ...... 22 3.2 Outcomes and Sustainability...... 25 3.3 Factors influencing Outcome Sustainability ...... 29 3.4 Influence of Environment and Development on Sustainability ...... 35 3.5 Cross-cutting Issues ...... 37 Gender...... 37 Resilience ...... 40 Fragility ...... 43 Private Sector...... 44 4. Conclusions and Lessons ...... 46 4.1 Conclusions ...... 46 4.1 Lessons...... 50 References...... 52 Annex 1: List of Projects Reviewed ...... 55 Annex 2: List of Country Case Studies and Projects Visited ...... 97 Annex 3: Sustainability Factors Observed in Country Case Studies...... 98 Annex 4: Classification of Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations in the Biomes ...... 100

TABLES Table 1: Countries’ Ratification of International Environmental Agreements ...... 8 Table 2: GEF support by geographic scope and support modality ...... 11 Table 3: GEF interventions by support modality ...... 12 Table 4: Programmatic and nonprogrammatic support by GEF replenishment period ...... 12 Table 5: Project status by GEF phase ...... 13 Table 6: Share of GEF projects and grant amount by GEF Agency ...... 14 Table 7: National projects addressing the main environmental challenges in the biomes...... 20 Table 8: Intervention typologies in the two biomes...... 21 Table 9: Outcome and sustainability ratings by focal area ...... 23 Table 10: Postcompletion sustainability ratings for field-verified projects in country studies...... 28 Table 11: Factors hindering sustainability observed in country case studies...... 31

MAPS AND FIGURES Map 1: Sub-Saharan Africa biomes ...... 5 Map 2: Countries in the two biomes ...... 5

Figure 1: Main environmental challenges for the 23 countries covered...... 7 Figure 2: Focal area grants invested in the two biomes by GEF replenishment period ...... 10 Figure 3: Share of the GEF grant by GEF Agency from the pilot phase to date in the biomes ...... 14 Figure 4: GEF funding in Agency portfolios by focal area ...... 15 Figure 5: Projects by focal area ...... 16 Figure 6: GEF funding by focal area...... 16 Figure 7: GEF funding by focal area and GEF replenishment period in the two biomes ...... 16 Figure 8: Multifocal support by funding component...... 17 Figure 9: GEF interventions and global environmental benefits in the biomes...... 18 Figure 10: APR rating comparisons ...... 22 Figure 11: APR ratings in the ‘Satisfactory/Likely’ range for national versus regional projects...... 24 Figure 12: Evidence of broader adoption having taken place during project implementation ...... 27 Figure 13: Likelihood of broader adoption taking place postcompletion...... 27 Figure 14: APR 2019 Sustainability dimensions in the biomes ...... 29 Figure 15: Satellite images, Bafing River source—2012, 2018 ...... 32 Figure 16: Time series of vegetation productivity and rainfall in the project period—Bafing River source..32 Figure 17: Gender consideration by GEF Replenishment period ...... 37 Figure 18: Gender consideration at entry by GEF replenishment period ...... 38 Figure 19: Gender consideration at entry in the biomes ...... 38 Figure 20: Gender consideration at completion in the biomes ...... 39

BOXES Box 1: Mechanisms of broader adoption ...... 26 Box 2: Examples of positive influence of environment/development synergies on sustainability ...... 36 Box 3: The Mounafanyi Women Group—Mamou, Guinea...... 40

iii

Box 4: Climate resilience in the GEF ...... 40 Box 5: Types of resilience system thinking ...... 41

VOLUME II: TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

(Volume II with the evaluation Technical Documents is provided separately)

TD1 – Approach Paper TD2 – Selection of Case Study Countries TD3 – Guidance Note for Country Case Studies TD4 – Guinea Case Study TD5 – Uganda Case Study TD6 – Nigeria Case Study TD7 – Mali Case Study TD8 – Mauritania Case Study TD9 – Project Review Protocol

ABBREVIATIONS

AfDB African Development Bank ALS Alternative Livelihood System APR Annual Performance Report CEO Chief Executive Officer FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GEF Global Environment Facility IEO Independent Evaluation Office IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index OPS6 Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF PMIS Project Management Information System POP persistent organic pollutant SCCE Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation SCCF Special Climate Change Fund SIDS small island developing states STAR System for Transparent Allocation of Resources UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme Note: All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. The GEF replenishment periods are as follows: Pilot phase: 1991–94 GEF-1: 1995–98 GEF-2: 1999–2002 GEF-3: 2003–06

GEF-4: 2006–10 GEF-5: 2010–14 GEF-6: 2014–18 GEF-7: 2018–22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background, Purpose, Objectives, Scope, and Methods 1. The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes in Sub-Saharan Africa experience severe environmental challenges, driven largely by climate change. Common challenges in the area are deforestation, land degradation, and desertification; biodiversity loss; water quality/quantity threats and threats to inland as well as coastal marine water resources; mining; and natural disasters. The pressing socioeconomic needs of a rapidly growing population compound the challenges at hand. Degradation of agricultural lands coupled with the high variability of rainfall poses obstacles to the food security and poverty reduction efforts in the region. While these concerns also apply to Sub-Saharan Africa overall, they are particularly important in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes, where livelihoods are under pressure from environmental challenges, and socioeconomic needs often take priority over environmental considerations in government development agendas. Differences do exist between countries in terms of their reliance on natural resources, susceptibility to natural disasters, population’s dependence on the environment, and government socioeconomic development and other priorities. 2. Over the last two and a half decades, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has provided support to address Sub-Saharan Africa’s main environmental challenges through national and regional programs and projects focusing on land, water, forests, energy, and biodiversity. To date, GEF investments in Sub-Saharan Africa amount to $4.78 billion for national, regional and global interventions. Since its pilot phase, the GEF has invested $2.48 billion in grants, accompanied by $16.37 billion in cofinancing through 794 national and regional projects in the countries in the two biomes. 3. In light of the many common environmental and economic challenges shared by the countries in the two biomes, this evaluation was conducted as a country cluster evaluation. It had the following strategic objectives: (1) to provide a deeper understanding of the determinants of the sustainability of outcomes of GEF support in the two biomes, and (2) to assess the relevance and performance of the GEF with regard to the their main environmental challenges from the countries’ perspective. The evaluation examined the relevance, performance, and sustainability of GEF interventions based on a desk review of the GEF project portfolio in the 23 biome countries from GEF-4 to GEF-6, and on five in-depth country case studies selected based on the aggregate and geospatial analyses of the portfolio under review. A specific focus of this evaluation was on the determinants of sustainability; this entailed in-depth assessment of a cohort of projects completed between 2007 and 2014, which allowed for sufficient time after completion to begin to evaluate the sustainability of GEF outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was followed, and systematic triangulation of the evidence collected was applied to evaluate performance and sustainability and capture lessons.

Main Findings and Conclusions 4. GEF support addresses the main environmental challenges faced by countries in the two biomes, with no major gaps of coverage. Most of the GEF support to these countries has focused on climate change, an important underlying cause of most environmental challenges in the biomes. Seventy-eight percent of the climate change focal area support in the two biomes is invested in support to adaptation. Land degradation began to be addressed in GEF-4 through focal area–specific support and continued afterwards mainly through multifocal area interventions. 5. The relevance of GEF support to country needs has not been affected by the GEF’s move toward integrated programming, including through multifocal projects and programmatic approaches. Investment in programs initially increased in GEF-4 and substantially decreased in GEF-5 and GEF-6. Programs and their respective child projects are becoming larger in size, and a move from projects addressing a single focal area toward multifocal interventions is observed in the two biomes. The increase in size of child projects is viewed favorably by country stakeholders, who tend to view projects in terms of the direct benefits they generate within the national boundaries. 6. The expansion of GEF Agencies has been a positive development in the biome countries in terms of offering them more choice, more diversity of expertise, and better focal area coverage. Most Agencies active in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes have a rather diversified portfolio that covers all GEF focal areas. Importantly, countries select GEF Agencies based on a larger set of comparative advantages than just their technical area of specialization, including, among other factors, the history of engagement between the Agency and the country in which the project is to be implemented. 7. In general, fewer projects in the two biomes—and in Africa as a whole—receive satisfactory ratings in terms of outcomes and their likely sustainability than the overall GEF portfolio, confirming findings from previous analyses. Whereas projects in Africa tend to have lower ratings, more recent terminal evaluations of GEF-4 to GEF-6 projects in the biomes rated higher than terminal evaluations of earlier projects completed between 2007 and 2014, which is promising. 8. While a larger percentage multifocal projects than those with a single focus undertaken in the biomes were rated as having satisfactory outcomes (85 percent compared to an average of 68 percent of single focal area projects), only 38 percent were rated as having outcomes that were likely to be sustained. Clearly, there is room for improvement on how to foster broader adoption and likelihood of sustainability of project outcomes through consideration of sustainability measures at project design, especially in multifocal interventions. This is particularly important given the GEF’s move toward integrated programming and multifocal support. 9. Demonstrating sustainability takes time. Projects tend to show higher observed sustainability of outcomes at postcompletion than at the terminal evaluation stage. While it is

vii

plausible that, as time goes by, context-related factors increasingly come into play as compared to project-related ones, field observations in this evaluation underscored the importance of designing projects with due consideration to measures that increase the likely sustainability of outcomes. 10. Financial sustainability is an issue in Sub-Saharan Africa overall, and is particularly challenging in the biomes. These findings reiterate the importance of planning at the design stage in order to set up viable financial mechanisms and measures that can continue to deliver benefits after project completion. 11. Context-sensitive, technologically appropriate project design positively affects the sustainability of outcomes in the biomes. Design that promotes sustainability takes into due consideration a country’s socioeconomic and political context as well as local conditions and knowledge, and includes measures and activities designed to support—from both financial and institutional standpoints—the continuation of outcomes postcompletion. 12. Designing profitable beneficiary-relevant alternative livelihood activities and working with existing institutions to include environmental considerations in local development plans emerged as important project-related sustainability factors in the biomes. This evaluation confirmed the importance of designing profitable alternative livelihood activities that correspond as much as possible to real needs in the everyday lives of beneficiaries. Continued operation and maintenance of small-scale infrastructure depends on the costs being within the financial reach of households. Local authorities in Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, and Mali have included environmental conservation activities in their commune and/or municipality sustainable development plans and budgets. 13. Not much consideration is given at project design to the influence of synergies and trade-offs between socioeconomic and environmental objectives on the prospects for sustainability in the biomes. This underscores the importance of nexus thinking between environmental and socioeconomic objectives and between short-term and long-term planning in enhancing sustainability. This evaluation found several examples demonstrating that when alternate livelihood systems with a clear, positive environmental-socioeconomic nexus were in place, the chances of the environmental benefits generated by GEF interventions being sustained was greater. 14. Gender considerations are increasingly incorporated in GEF interventions in the two biomes. In-line with similar findings of previous analyses by the GEF’s Independent Evaluation Office, gender is considered during implementation even if not addressed at the design stage in projects developed by the biome countries. 15. Resilience to climate risks is addressed in climate change adaptation projects mostly in the form of risk management and as a cobenefit. Newer GEF projects, whether funded through the main GEF Trust Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund, or the Special Climate Change Fund, integrated resilience within the respective project’s multiple benefits framework.

viii

16. Fragility has affected the timely delivery of GEF support, but the outcomes and sustainability of GEF support in the two biomes has been largely unaffected. This evaluation found several examples in which the negative effects of newly emerged fragile situations have tended to be felt less in rural areas; or in relation to activities with a clear and tangible financial viability, and a high correspondence with beneficiary needs. Lessons 17. This evaluation’s findings and conclusions can be used to inform future GEF programming in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biome countries. General examples include the following, most of which have wider applicability in all of the world regions in which the GEF intervenes:

• Consider sustainability factors in project design and track them during implementation • In particular take financial sustainability into account during design and implementation

• Foster synergies and mitigate trade-offs between the environment and development An important lesson is that the GEF should pay attention to the nature and degree of multidimensionality it incorporates in the design of its multifocal interventions, especially as it goes toward integrated programming to scale up and address the main drivers of environmental degradation. The full range of lessons generated by this evaluation will feed into the seventh comprehensive evaluation of the GEF.

RECOMMENDATIONS 18. Project and program design in the biomes must include a discussion on how sustainability, including financial sustainability, is going to be addressed and managed. A well-designed intervention should include measures and activities that will support the continued delivery of outcomes beyond the life of the project. Sustainability factors identified at the design stage should be tracked by GEF Agencies during implementation and terminal evaluations should report on these. Financial sustainability must be given priority in the design and implementation of GEF support in the biomes and in Africa overall. The GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies should elaborate financial arrangements at the project-design stage, that can continue after project completion to deliver benefits over time. Support to institutions should be designed considering measures to enable those institutions to operate postcompletion on a sufficient and stable financial foot.

19. A clear discussion on how to foster synergies between environment and development must be included in design and managed through implementation. When designing and appraising proposals in the two biomes attention should be paid to the influence synergies between socioeconomic and environmental objectives have on the prospects for sustainability. Not much consideration has been given at project design stage to the influence that synergies between socioeconomic and environmental objectives have on the prospects for sustainability in the biomes. Several examples observed in the five countries visited provided compelling evidence

indicating that when these considerations have been taken into account in design and implementation the prospects for sustainability postcompletion greatly improved. Fostering synergies between the environmental and development objectives should be more systematically pursued as the GEF already increasingly considers socioeconomic cobenefits in its recent portfolio.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Evaluation Background, Purpose, Objectives, Scope, and Methods

20. Since its inception, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has invested heavily in Africa— and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, providing almost 30 percent of its total funding to this area struggling to meet the dual challenges of climate change and extreme poverty. GEF grants totaling $4.78 billion, complemented by cofinancing of $16.37 billion,1 have been allocated to Sub-Saharan Africa since 1992 in an effort to support a set of countries in which socioeconomic needs are frequently prioritized over environmental considerations in government development agendas. Although differences exist among the Sub-Saharan countries in terms of their reliance on natural resources, their susceptibility to natural disasters, the dependence of their poor on the environment for subsistence, and their socioeconomic development priorities, they all face challenges of environmental resource loss and competition as they strive to improve their people’s standard of living. The GEF has thus provided support to help the region meet its main environmental challenges through national and regional programs and projects focused largely on land, water, forests, energy, and biodiversity. 21. Despite the GEF’s long and intensive engagement in the region, evaluations conducted by the GEF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) have revealed pervasive and long-standing weaknesses. Notably, the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6) found that fewer GEF-funded projects in Sub-Saharan Africa were rated as having satisfactory level of outcomes achievement or as having outcomes that were likely to be sustained than in other world regions (GEF IEO 2017). One shortcoming that may be related to these lower ratings is limited institutional capacity, which has been identified as an important issue to be addressed. Also, mechanisms for projects’ future financial sustainability—through the market, government budgets, or both—are lacking. Establishing such mechanisms is a key condition for transformational change to occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. 22. To explore the factors enabling or hindering the achievement of results and the sustainability of the effects from GEF-funded interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa—and at the request of the GEF-7 Replenishment Group—the GEF IEO undertook a biome-based evaluation of regional support.2 Specifically, the IEO structured a strategic country cluster evaluation (SCCE) focusing on two ecologically homogeneous zones of the Sub-Saharan Africa region: the Sahel and the Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes. These two biomes include 23 countries particularly and similarly confronted by land-based environmental issues such as deforestation and land degradation, biodiversity loss, and desertification; as well as challenges related to governance,

1 Funding figures are as of December 30, 2019, and exclude unallocated parent program financing, funding for dropped and canceled projects, and Agency fees. They do include project preparation grants. 2 A biome is an ecological zone sharing similar habitats or vegetation types. Its uniformity is defined by the type of plant life in relation to temperature and rainfall patterns. Each biome consists of several terrestrial ecoregions (a smaller class). An ecoregion covers a realm of land/water having geographically distinctive communities, sharing the same environmental conditions and ecological dynamics (Data Basin 2010). 1

demographics, migration, and conflict and fragility. It should be noted that 13 of these 23 countries are considered fragile. These latter challenges serve to drive the environmental issues the countries face. Since GEF-4, the GEF has invested a total of $1.737 billion through 511 interventions; this evaluation focuses on 453 of those, accounting for $1.63 billion in GEF funding. The majority of this funding was provided from the GEF Trust Fund, with the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) accounting for almost a third of total GEF funding; the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) accounts for a negligible percentage of funding to the two biomes. 23. The African Biomes SCCE looked at the relevance of GEF interventions to national priorities and took a “deep dive” into the sustainability of outcomes in the biomes. It looked at the 453 interventions comprising the GEF-4 to GEF-6 cohort to assess the relevance of GEF support to the respective national environmental and sustainable development priorities of the countries. It also assessed their environmental outcomes and the sustainability of those outcomes. Specifically, the evaluation included an in-depth analysis of the project- and context- related factors contributing to and/or hindering outcome sustainability. A focus of the evaluation was on the nexus (whether explicitly recognized or not) between national environment and socioeconomic development priorities as determinants of the observed sustainability in the countries five years after completion. The African Biomes SCCE also looked at gender, resilience, and fragility as cross-cutting issues affecting the GEF interventions. 24. As described in the evaluation approach paper contained in volume 2 of this report (GEF IEO 2018g), the overarching objectives of the evaluation were to (1) provide a deeper understanding of the determinants of GEF-funded outcome sustainability in the two biomes and (2) assess the relevance and performance of the GEF toward the two biomes’ main environmental challenges from the countries’ perspective. These objectives were translated into five key evaluation questions, two of which address the cross-cutting issues of gender, resilience, and fragility:

(a) What are the key factors influencing sustainability of outcomes in the two biomes?

(b) In what way, if any, does the environment and socioeconomic development/livelihoods nexus in terms of promotion of synergies and mitigation of tradeoffs help explain the sustainability of outcomes in the two biomes?

(c) To what extent has GEF support been relevant to the main environmental challenges countries face in the two biomes, and are there any gaps?

(d) To what extent have gender and resilience been taken into consideration in GEF programming in the two biomes?

(e) To what extent has GEF support performed in the 13 fragile countries in the two biomes, and how have the results obtained from completed GEF programs and projects been affected in those situations that have become fragile?

25. The evaluation was conducted through a mixed-methods approach encompassing both quantitative and qualitative sources of data, information, and analytical tools. The analysis involved an extensive desk study of project and program documents using a project review template (included in volume 2 of this report) and an aggregate portfolio review. The complete list of projects reviewed is provided in annex 1. Both components aimed to identify trends as well as cases of positive and absent or negative change. 26. In addition, the evaluation conducted five country case studies in Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, and Uganda. These countries were purposively selected based on the results of the aggregate desk study and portfolio trend analyses, following a rigorously structured selection process (GEF IEO 2018h) and a standardized country study approach (GEF IEO 2019b). Both the selection process and the country study approach are described in volume 2. Five to 10 projects per country were reviewed in the country case studies for a total of 31 projects, 16 of which were field verified. Annex 2 lists the projects visited in the five case study countries. A geospatial analysis was conducted prior to the case study missions. Targeted field verifications were conducted in specific project sites selected based on the findings of the geospatial and aggregate portfolio analyses. The purpose of the field verifications was to identify and understand the determinants of the observed change, or lack thereof. Detailed country case study reports are included in volume 2. 27. For most evaluation components, the African Biomes SCCE covered the period from GEF-4 (starting in 2006) to GEF-6. This relevance cohort comprises 453 national and regional interventions. The sustainability analysis focused on national and regional interventions completed between 2007 and 2014, which ensured sufficient time after completion to observe the sustainability of project outcomes over the long term. This ‘sustainability cohort’ is composed of 88 interventions, 67 of which were analyzed using a detailed project review template. Triangulation of the qualitative as well as quantitative data and information collected was conducted at completion of the data gathering and analysis phase to determine trends and identify the main findings, conclusions, and lessons. 28. The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes delineated the geographic scope of the evaluation. The African Biomes SCCE portfolio included enabling activities, full- and medium-size projects, as well as programs in the 23 countries that are part of the two biomes. Global initiatives and those regional interventions established as umbrella arrangements for administrative convenience, such as the GEF Biosafety Program (GEF ID 3654), were excluded from the evaluation’s scope.3 29. The analysis focused on the biodiversity and climate change (both adaptation and mitigation) focal areas, the latter specifically focusing on carbon sequestration from forestry and other land management practices. Land degradation; international waters; chemicals and waste (particularly initiatives involving chemical stockpiles and the elimination of pesticides); and

3 Exclusions account for 18.6 percent of the total grants in the biomes between GEF-4 and GEF-6. 3

multifocal interventions composed of biodiversity, climate change adaptation, and land degradation were also part of the scope. 30. In line with IEO practice, stakeholder engagement and quality assurance measures were established for the evaluation. A reference group, consisting of representatives from the GEF Secretariat, the GEF Agencies, and the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel provided feedback and comments on the approach paper (GEF IEO 2018f), the preliminary findings, and the draft evaluation report. The Director of the Evaluation Office of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) served as an external peer reviewer.

31. Two limitations were encountered in the course of this evaluation: (1) the limited reliability of the GEF Project Management Information System (PMIS) data on programs and projects, especially on implementation status; and (2) the limited number of field visits able to be conducted. The first limitation, noted in many GEF IEO evaluations, was addressed by cross- checking the PMIS data and information with data from the management information systems of GEF Agencies before undertaking any analysis. The PMIS data were additionally cross-referenced and updated with the newly created GEF portal data management system to ensure that the most recent project information and financing were captured. The second limitation was addressed by conducting field missions to countries jointly with those in parallel SCCEs as well as other evaluations conducted by the IEO, to increase field coverage. The Guinea-Bissau country case study conducted as part of the small island developing states (SIDS) SCCE is an example of such increased coverage.

1.2 The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna Biomes

32. The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes face severe environmental challenges, driven largely by climate change. Their most significant challenges are deforestation and land degradation, biodiversity loss, and desertification. Additionally, their inland and coastal marine water resources are threatened by issues of water quality and quantity. Mining and an accelerating pace of natural disasters in the context of climate change also threaten the biomes’ natural resources. Exacerbating these issues are the pressing socioeconomic needs of a rapidly growing population. Notably, degradation of agricultural lands, coupled with highly variable rainfall, jeopardizes food security and poverty reduction efforts in the region (UN 2013). 33. The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes cover 12.2 million square kilometers, stretching from African East to West Coast. The Sahel includes parts of 10 countries. The Sudan- Guinea Savanna covers large parts of 16 countries. Eight countries are part of both biomes (maps 1 and 2).

Map 1: Sub-Saharan Africa biomes Map 2: Countries in the two biomes

Source: Riley 2012.

34. Despite experiencing strong economic growth in recent years, most countries in the Sahel and the Sudan-Guinea savanna remain low-income countries, with an average gross domestic product per capita of $1,396.4 The United Nations projects that population growth in these areas—a combined 604 million as of 2014 will be in line with those of least developed countries worldwide—namely, a doubling of population between 2010 and 2050. Over 60 percent of the biomes’ population lives in rural areas; overall population density in the two biomes is relatively low at 49 people per square kilometer (UN DESA 2014). At the same time, the average urban growth rate is close to 4 percent per year. Many governments in the biomes, as in similar areas, struggle to provide basic social services, especially access to water and sanitation (UN DESA 2014). Other challenges relate to achieving food and energy security and managing environmental risks. 35. A large portion of the two biomes is characterized by arid and semiarid climates with strong climatic variation and irregular rainfall. Forty-one percent of the land area is dedicated to agriculture, of which approximately 12 percent is designated arable land. Approximately 12 percent is classified as forest area, and approximately 13 percent is designated terrestrial protected area. Rain-fed subsistence agriculture is the main source of household livelihoods in many parts of the African drylands, especially the Sahel (Kumssa and Jones 2010). The drylands, grasslands, and savannas in the two biomes experience high spatial and temporal variability in rainfall, resulting in dramatic differences in plant growth, habitats, and human livelihoods (UNEP 2007). Balancing needs between the environment and development is central to sustainability, sustainable development, and livelihoods (Biggs et al. 2015). The main environmental challenges

4 2014–16 average at constant 2010 dollars. 5

faced by countries in the two biomes face severe environmental challenges are categorized in Figure 1. Climate change is a major driver for most of these challenges. 36. Deforestation, land degradation, and desertification. A significant part of the Sahel is classified as desert, while the remainder is highly vulnerable to desertification. This vulnerability is prone to increase with prolonged droughts and increasing human pressure on water and land resources. Biomass burning, a common practice throughout all African savannas, is among the contributing factors. Controlled fires are used in the two biomes to manage grasslands and savannas for livestock production and wildlife, control pests, clear dying vegetation, and convert wild lands to croplands (Trollope and Trollope 2004). Poor agricultural practices are the primary human cause for desertification in the two biomes because of their role in deforestation, soil erosion, and pollution. 37. Threats to biodiversity. The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna face critical threats to biodiversity loss. Hosting two of Africa’s eight biodiversity hotspots—the Guinean Forests of West Africa and the “W” biosphere reserve—these areas act as a buffer against advancing desertification. Human-induced activity such as agricultural expansion, uncontrolled fires, and poaching pose a threat to the biodiversity and wildlife in these hotspots. Species are also threatened by logging, mining, and hunting. Growing household demand for fuelwood and charcoal puts further pressure on forest resources, threatening biodiversity. Marine and coastal biodiversity is under stress because of overharvesting and unstainable fishing in the coastal areas of West Africa (USAID 2013). Balancing needs between the environment and development is central to sustainability, sustainable development, and livelihoods (Biggs et al. 2015).

38. Water-related environmental challenges. The two biomes face pressure with regard to water availability, accessibility, and demand. In these predominantly arid and semiarid lands, water consumption for agriculture highly exploits both surface and groundwater resources. Combined with climate variability and drought, this puts further pressure on the already limited water resources available to the two biomes. Because of decreased rainfall and increased water usage, the extent of Lake Chad decreased by 95 percent over approximately 35 years (UNEP 2008). Lake Chad and the Nile River basin provide most of the available freshwater from transboundary watercourses. Groundwater in West Africa is difficult to access, accounting it thereby for only about 1 percent of the water used in the biomes.

Figure 1: Main environmental challenges for the 23 countries covered

Exclusively or predominantly Exclusively or predominantly Guinea- Environmental challenge Sahel biome countries Savannah biome countries Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Deforestation Eritrea, Mauritania, Chad, Mali, Niger, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea- and land Sudan, Burkina Faso, Senegal Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra degradation Leone, South Sudan, Togo, Uganda

Threats to Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Eritrea, Mali, Niger, Sudan biodiversity Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Togo, Uganda

Desertification Mauritania, Chad, Mali, Niger, Burkina Benin, Nigeria

Faso

Water quality Chad, Eritrea, Mali, Burkina Faso Ethiopia, Liberia, Uganda and quantity

Coastal and Cameroon, Gambia, Guinea, coral reef Mauritania, Senegal Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast degradation

Threats to marine Mauritania, Senegal Gambia, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Sierra Leone resources

Threats to in- Ghana, Guinea, South Sudan land water Sudan resources

Central African Republic, Mauritania, Niger Mining Nigeria

Natural Chad, Mali Gambia disasters

Source: Adapted from UNEP 2008.

1.3 International Environmental Conventions

39. Faced with several environmental challenges as delineated above, most countries in the two biomes have become signatories to the main international and regional environmental conventions (Table 1). By complying with convention obligations, these countries can access and benefit from financial support from the GEF. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention for Biological Diversity have been ratified by all 23 countries in the biomes. And all these countries except South Sudan have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Most countries are also party to the more recent Minamata Convention on Mercury. Additionally, some countries have joined other biome- or ecoregion-specific

environmental agreements, such as the Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel and the Abidjan Convention for the Cooperation in the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Atlantic Coast of the West, Central and Southern Africa Region.

Table 1: Countries’ Ratification of International Environmental Agreements Country UNFCCC UNCCD CBD Stockholm Rotterdam Basel Minamata Benin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Burkina Faso Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cameroon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Central African Republic Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Chad Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eritrea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ethiopia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Gambia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ghana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Guinea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Guinea-Bissau Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ivory Coast Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Liberia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mali Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mauritania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Niger Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nigeria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Senegal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sierra Leone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes South Sudan No Yes Yes No No No No Sudan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Togo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Uganda Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: International environmental convention websites. Note: CBD=Convention on Biological Diversity. UNCCD=United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. UNFCCC=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

40. To comply with convention obligations, several countries in the two biomes have developed sound national environmental policy and legal frameworks. Unfortunately, these frameworks are often not enforced because of a lack of funding, limited technical capacity, or political will in terms of different government priorities. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “Although some [African] countries have incorporated the Multilateral Environmental Agreements into national policies and framework laws, few have succeeded in achieving the enforcement of policies and laws” (UNEP 2006, p. 501).5 On the positive side, Africa has a more advanced framework for environmental laws and constitutional rights than any other region, because of its long history of abuse by extraction industries. African countries are more likely to have transparency laws, such as requiring all or some contracts related to oil, gas, or mining to be made public.

5 African countries are not the only ones with weak enforcement. A recent UN report finds that while most countries in the world have environmental regulations, very few actually abide by them (UNEP 2019). 9

2. GEF’S ENGAGEMENT IN THE TWO BIOMES

2.1 Portfolio

Funding 41. GEF support to the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes increased substantially since the pilot phase, reaching over $600 million in both GEF-5 and GEF-6. Approximately one- third of this amount came from allocations programmed under the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR). Support provided in the GEF-7 replenishment cycle to date continues to be strong, with maximum programming funds of $220 million from STAR allocations, to which additional non-STAR resources, including set-aside incentives for participating in integrated programs, can be accessed. Since its pilot phase, the GEF has invested a total of $2.48 billion in grants, with an accompanying $16.37 billion in cofinancing, through 794 national and regional projects in the countries in the two biomes (Figure 2). The 23 countries also participate in 80 global projects and 14 global programs totaling $1.04 billion. One of these global programs is the Small Grants Programme, for which a total of $209 million in funding has been provided in each replenishment period from GEF-4 to GEF-6. Figure 2: Focal area grants invested in the two biomes by GEF replenishment period

GEF - 7 Biodiversity

GEF - 6 Chemicals and Waste (incl. GEF - 5 POPs) Climate Change GEF - 4 GEF - 3 International Waters GEF - 2 Land Degradation GEF - 1 Multi Focal Area Pilot Phase

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 Millions

Note: Excludes funding for global interventions and unallocated parent program financing.

42. Most of the GEF support to the two biomes has focused on climate change. Climate change interventions accounted for the largest share of the GEF portfolio in the two biomes in GEF-5, followed by multifocal area projects. Just over two-thirds of these climate change interventions were for adaptation, which accounted for 23 percent of total project financing across all focal areas in the two biomes. 43. Land degradation started to be addressed in GEF-4 through focal area-specific support and continued afterwards mainly through multifocal area interventions. The OPS6 reports that while GEF focal area objectives are in most cases strongly aligned with country priorities, there are some exceptions. Previous evaluations identified a disconnect between GEF support and 10

countries’ demands for land degradation support (GEF IEO 2009a). The Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF concluded that support for land degradation was available through the focal area allocation and was later partially fulfilled through multifocal support. A similar evolution is observed in the two biomes, where land degradation projects began in GEF-3 with the establishment of the land degradation focal area. These projects increased from 16 percent in GEF-3 to 22 percent of the total in GEF-4 and decreased in GEF-5. As is the case for the GEF overall, multifocal area projects in this portfolio began to increase during GEF-4, a trend that continues to date. The most common focal area combination of multifocal interventions in the two biomes is land degradation, biodiversity, and climate change adaptation; this combination accounts for 36 percent of the total multifocal area support provided from GEF-4 to GEF-6. 44. Excluding global interventions, which are outside the scope of this evaluation, between GEF-4 and GEF-6, the GEF invested $1.63 billion in grants, accompanied by $14.68 billion in cofinancing, through 453 national and regional interventions—including enabling activities and medium- and full-size projects. Thirty percent of these interventions are part of 11 programmatic approaches (Table 2). Table 2: GEF support by geographic scope and support modality Medium-size Enabling activity Full-size project Total* Intervention project scope Million $ No. Million $ No. Million $ No. Million $ No. Country 21.4 80 82.9 74 1,093.3 225 1,197.5 379 Regional 9.3 7 24.4 21 401.1 46 434.8 74 Global 30.8 9 21.7 15 313.2 21 365.7 45 Total 61.5 96 129.0 110 1,807.5 292 1,998.0 498 *These totals include $147.27 million of unallocated financing remaining in parent programs.

Modality 45. GEF support for countries in the biomes was delivered predominantly through full-size projects, either as stand-alone initiatives or as part of a program.6 Full-size projects have been by far the most used support modality in the 23 countries over the last three GEF replenishment periods. Child projects under programmatic approaches account for 33 percent of GEF financing in the biomes (Table 3). Most child projects are full-size interventions, further bolstering the large number of full-size projects in the area.

6 A program is a coherent set of interventions designed to attain specific global, regional, country, or sector objectives, con sisting of a variable number of child projects. 11

Table 3: GEF interventions by support modality Modality Number of projects GEF funding ($) Parent program 11 60,707,930* Child projects 135 476,912,027 Enabling activities 67 30,385,577 Full-size projects 183 983,363,679 Medium-size projects 68 80,920,026 Total 453** 1,632,289,240 *Total unallocated financing. **Excludes the 11 parent programs.

46. Investment in programs increased in GEF-4, but decreased in GEF-5 and GEF-6. The programmatic approach modality was formally introduced in 2008 during GEF-4. At that time, programs constituted approximately 65 percent of total programming in the two biomes. Funding for programs decreased substantially afterwards, accounting for less than a quarter of funding in both GEF-5 and GEF-6. The shift away from programmatic approaches in the biomes observed between GEF-4 and GEF-6 occurred while the GEF moved toward integrated programming (Table 4). Completed programmatic interventions include TerrAfrica, a large World Bank–implemented program focusing on sustainable land management with a GEF grant of more than $150 million and over $1 billion in cofinancing. During its 10-year life span, TerrAfrica supported the implementation of two major investment programs: the 2008 Strategic Investment Program, which mobilized over $1 billion to address land degradation in Africa through 36 programs and projects; and the 2011 Great Green Wall Initiative, a $1.1 billion program that promoted sustainable land use practices in 12 countries to build the resilience of ecosystems and livelihoods.

Table 4: Programmatic and nonprogrammatic support by GEF replenishment period Programmatic support Nonprogrammatic support Total Replenishment Number of Number of Number of stand- Number of period child Million $ Million $ Million $* programs alone projects projects projects GEF-4 5 76 233.74 49 124.89 125 358.63 GEF-5 4 40 142.70 144 482.21 184 624.91 GEF-6 2 19 161.18 125 487.57 144 648.75 Total 11 135 537.62 318 1,094.67 453 1,632.29 *Including unallocated parent program financing.

47. Programs and their respective child projects are becoming larger, and a move from a single focal area toward multifocal interventions is occuring. These trends signal an important change in the way GEF programs are designed and implemented in the region. Child project size went from an average of $3.0 million in GEF-4 to $6.3 million in GEF-6. The introduction in GEF-6 of the Integrated Approach Pilots, in which several countries in the two biomes participate, contributed to this development. The STAR allocation committed by countries for participating in

the Integrated Approach Pilots is matched with a one-to-one dollar incentive from focal area set- aside funding. 48. Country stakeholders tend to view projects in terms of the direct benefits they generate within the national boundaries. Less attention is paid to the shared knowledge that could be derived from their affiliation with a larger program that operates in multiple countries. This is consistent with the findings of the recent programmatic approaches evaluation (GEF IEO 2018b). National project managers and implementers consulted through dyadic interviews in Ghana and Mail did not see any difference between stand-alone and child projects. The Uganda case study revealed that the preferred GEF support modality was national, multifocal full-size projects. Interviewees explained that national projects are tailored to national needs and are managed in- country. They further maintain that the scale of investment for full-size projects has the potential for long-term impact: hence, the larger a project is, the better. Multifocal projects are seen as addressing the multidimensional nature and interconnectedness of environmental challenges through application of a multisectoral approach. 49. GEF interventions in the two biomes take time to be implemented. This is not surprising, considering the often-challenging conditions in which GEF support is delivered in these countries. Thirty-four percent of GEF support in the two biomes includes projects under implementation. The majority of these are projects approved in GEF-4 and GEF-5. Most of the projects completed in the last three replenishment periods were begun in GEF-4, while most GEF-6 interventions have yet to start implementation (Table 5). Table 5: Project status by GEF phase GEF-4 GEF-5 GEF-6 Total Status Million $ No. Million $ No. Million $ No. Million $* No. Pending approval 0 0 0.22 1 147.24 25 147.46 26 PIF/PPG approval or clearance 0 0 0 0 2.40 2 2.40 2 Council approved 0.43 1 12.75 14 88.98 18 102.17 33 CEO approved/endorsed 3.50 1 86.16 12 219.37 53 309.03 66 Under implementation 135.64 42 476.93 128 148.55 46 761.13 216 Completed/closed 215.36 81 34.02 29 0 0 249.39 110 Total 354.94 125 610.09 184 606.55 144 1,571.58 453 Note: CEO=Chief Executive Officer. PIF=project identification form. PPG=project preparation grant. *Excluding unallocated parent program financing.

Agencies 50. The number of GEF Agencies providing support to the biomes increased from GEF-4 onwards. OPS6 notes that the expansion of the GEF partnership to 18 Agencies has increased GEF relevance in countries through greater choice and focal area coverage. This finding also applies to the countries in the two biomes under consideration here. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNEP, and the World Bank—the three original GEF Agencies active since the

pilot phase—have the largest share of GEF grants in the 23 countries, implementing 75 percent of projects by number and 77 percent of GEF funding (Table 6). Table 6: Share of GEF projects and grant amount by GEF Agency GEF-4 GEF-5 GEF-6 Total Agency Million $ No. Million $ No. Million $ No. Million $ No. AfDB 4.50 1 96.15 17 69.68 12 170.33 30 BOAD 0 0 0 0 18.90 2 18.90 2 CI 0 0 0.96 1 14.11 4 15.07 5 FAO 29.45 7 42.55 11 40.96 7 112.96 25 GEF Secretariat* 0 0 0.30 20 0 0 0.30 20 IFAD 27.28 7 28.69 5 22.27 3 78.24 15 IUCN 0 0 6.59 1 17.98 5 24.56 6 UNDP 106.91 44 215.60 56 230.20 55 552.71 155 UNEP 53.07 26 68.40 30 86.09 32 207.56 88 UNIDO 13.86 11 19.56 26 20.02 15 53.44 52 World Bank 119.86 29 131.29 17 86.35 9 337.50 55 Total 354.94 125 610.09 184 606.55 144 1,571.58 453 Note: AfDB= African Development Bank. BOAD=West African Development Bank. CI=Conservation International. FAO=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. IUCN=International Union for Conservation of Nature. UNIDO=United Nations Industrial Development Organization. *The GEF Secretariat directly implemented the National Portfolio Formulation Exercises conducted in GEF-5.

51. The relative share of funding in the biomes for these three original Agencies diminished as newer Agencies joined the partnership from GEF-4 onwards, beginning with the first expansion of 7 additional Agencies and continuing with the second expansion of 10 in GEF-6. This trend, shown in Figure 3, holds true for the GEF portfolio worldwide. Although GEF-7 is not yet fully programmed, further diversification of the GEF Agencies is observed. For the first time in GEF history, the combined portfolio funding share for the three original GEF Agencies in the area is under 50 percent in GEF-7 to date. This finding is partly explained by a more specific and diversified demand for technical services by recipient countries, as well as by the GEF’s strategic move from single focal area support toward multisectoral integrated programming through large impact programs. Figure 3: Share of the GEF grant by GEF Agency from the pilot phase to date in the biomes

100% 2% 3% 1% 8% 4% 21% 31% 80% 25% 51% 2nd Expansion - GEF Project Agencies 60% 100% 100% 98% 97% 1st Expansion - GEF Implementing Agencies 40% 79% 68% 66% 20% 46% Original Implementing Agencies (World Bank, UNDP, UNEP) 0% Pilot GEF - 1 GEF - 2 GEF - 3 GEF - 4 GEF - 5 GEF - 6 GEF - 7 Phase

52. GEF Agencies in the region are diversified across focal areas. Most GEF Agencies active in the Sahel and the Sudan-Guinea savanna have a rather diversified portfolio in terms of focal area composition, albeit with a large share of climate change projects implemented by each Agency. Very few GEF Agencies tend to focus on their areas of specialization in providing services to the countries in the two biomes. One Agency that does have a rather specialized portfolio is the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, which implements almost equal shares of projects addressing climate change and chemicals and waste/POPs, and is the only Agency active in the biomes that does not implement any multifocal interventions (Figure 4). Figure 4: GEF funding in Agency portfolios by focal area

100%

90% 80% POPs 70% Multi Focal Area 60% Land Degradation 50% International Waters 40% Climate Change 30% Chemicals and Waste 20% Biodiversity 10%

0% AfDB FAO IFAD UNIDO World Bank UNDP UNEP

Note: The West African Development Bank, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Conservation International are omitted because of the low number of projects.

53. Countries select GEF Agencies based on a larger set of comparative advantages than just technical area of specialization. From a detailed review of project documents, it clearly emerged that the comparative advantage of a GEF Agency includes (1) the history of its engagement with the country in which the project is implemented; (2) its ability to bring in technical expertise, provide policy support, and strengthen national capacity; and (3) its thematic knowledge and familiarity with a given subject area through experience with similar projects implemented in the same country or region. 54. Interviews with national stakeholders conducted during country case studies confirmed the above finding. Government officials in Guinea indicated that the expansion of GEF Agencies has increased the relevance of GEF support to Guinea’s national environmental priorities and enabled the country to work with a range of partners based on their comparative and competitive advantage. For example, Guinea opted to work with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on a project related to land management around forest areas—a technical domain in which the Agency has much to offer in terms of both expertise and regional experience. Similarly, based on its familiarity with the subject matter, the International Union for Conservation of Nature was asked to accompany a group representing four neighboring

countries—Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Côte d’Ivoire—on a regional project to fight against wildlife crime. This project was initially sponsored by the African Development Bank. Once the International Union for Conservation of Nature officially became an accredited GEF Agency, it was asked by the participating countries to take the lead implementing role. This change was made in agreement with the African Development Bank.

Focal Areas 55. Seventy-eight percent of climate change focal area funding for the two biomes is invested in support to adaptation. The remaining 22 percent is dedicated to mitigation. Climate change and multifocal support accounted for most of the portfolio in the GEF-4 to GEF-6 period in terms of both number of projects and funding (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Funding for climate change adaptation comes exclusively from the LDCF and the SCCF, while most of the funding for mitigation interventions originates from the GEF Trust Fund. Figure 5: Projects by focal area Figure 6: GEF funding by focal area Biodiversity , $ 118.20 Chemicals millions, 8% and Waste , $ 153.84 Land millions, 10% Degradation , Biodiversity , 26 Projects, Multi Focal 65 Projects, Multi Focal 6% Area , 109 14% Area , Projects, 24% $ 445.50 Chemicals millions, 28% and Waste , 68 Projects, 15% Climate Climate Change Change (Adaptation and International (Adaptation Land Mitigation) , Waters , 21 and Degradation , $ 614.59 Projects, 5% Mitigation) , $ 100.83 million, 39% 164 Projects, millions, 6% 36% International Waters , $ 138.63 millions, 9%

56. In line with the GEF’s move toward integrated programming, the share of multifocal projects in the two biomes is increasing. A substantial increase is also observed for the climate change focal area. Investment in biodiversity has decreased over time (Figure 7). Figure 7: GEF funding by focal area and GEF replenishment period in the two biomes

Biodiversity GEF - 6 Chemicals and Waste GEF - 5 Climate Change GEF - 4 International Waters - 200 400 600 800 Land Degradation Millions Multi Focal Area

57. Despite the increase in the number of multifocal area projects with land degradation components in the overall GEF portfolio (GEF IEO 2018e), the share of land degradation financing in those projects ranged between 16 and 19 percent during the GEF-4 to GEF-6 period, peaking in GEF-5. However, the share for land degradation in multifocal funding in the biomes was much higher, ranging from 24 to 30 percent, with its peak in GEF-4. This large relative share indicates the importance of funding for land degradation in the region. 58. In both GEF-5 and GEF-6, more than 20 percent of the funding for multifocal interventions in the biomes originated from sources other than single focal area allocations. Sources include funding for Integrated Approach Pilots, the LDCF, the SCCF, and funding for multifocal projects not specifically earmarked to any GEF focal area (Figure 8). Figure 8: Multifocal support by funding component 100% 6% 90% 22% 21% 80% 24% 6% Other* 70% 15% 11% SFM 60% 9% 5% 30% Chemicals and Waste 50% International Waters 25% 40% 24% Land Degradation 30% Climate Change 32% 13% 12% 20% Biodiversity

10% 17% 19% 8% 0% GEF - 4 GEF - 5 GEF - 6

Source: GEF PMIS data provided by the GEF Secretariat.

59. Within each focal area it is important for the GEF to ensure support to achieve global environmental benefits. A desk review of the global environmental benefits sought through GEF support in the two biomes found that the main intervention domains included support to transformation shifts toward low-emissions and resilient development paths (37 percent), followed by maintaining globally significant biodiversity (31 percent) and sustainable land management (25 percent) (Figure 9). A review of the environmental domains in the project logical frameworks, results frameworks and related monitoring tools shows that the most measured domains are deforestation, land degradation and sustainable land management (30 percent), and threats to terrestrial biodiversity (23 percent).

Figure 9: GEF interventions and global environmental benefits in the biomes

GEB 1. Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides to society. 31%

GEB 2. Sustainable land management in production systems (agriculture, rangelands, and forest landscapes) 25%

GEB 3. Promotion of collective management of trans-boundary water systems and implementation of the full range of policy, legal, and institutional reforms and investments contributing to 10% sustainable use and maintenance of ecosystem services.

GEB 4. Support to transformational shifts towards a low- emission and resilient development path. 37%

GEB 5. Increase in phase-out, disposal and reduction of releases of POPs, ODS, mercury and other chemicals of global concern. 11%

GEB 6. Enhance capacity of countries to implement MEAs (multilateral environmental agreements) and mainstream into national and sub-national policy, planning financial and legal 15% frameworks.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Note: n = 358. Several projects address multiple areas of intervention.

2.2 Relevance to National Environmental Challenges

60. GEF interventions are aligned with the respective government’s environmental priorities in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea savanna countries. Ninety-three percent of the GEF projects reviewed in the relevance cohort described the project’s relevance to the country’s specific priorities and considered these priorities in their design. In addition, 85 percent of projects included detailed reference to the specific environmental challenges in the country. These challenges are addressed in the project objectives and components. Relevance was confirmed in country case studies. Government officials interviewed in the countries visited noted that the GEF is an important source of funding that fits well into their planning. For example, GEF support is aligned to Uganda’s Vision 2040 and national development plans that call for conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment. Both government representatives and nongovernmental stakeholders interviewed in Conakry, Guinea, reported that GEF projects are usually in line with national strategies and address priority needs. In particular, GEF support has been critical in addressing, advancing, and raising awareness of the country’s main environmental issues, including deforestation, land degradation, destruction of mangroves, and sea level rise. 61. GEF support addresses the main environmental challenges faced by countries in the two biomes. Although not a specific national environmental challenge for countries in the Sahel or

the Sudan-Guinea savanna, climate change is addressed by 44 percent of the projects reviewed. In addition to being a major financing window in the GEF as well as in the environmental donor community, climate change acts as a major driver for land degradation, desertification, and water scarcity. Seventy-seven projects (22 percent) addressed deforestation, land degradation and desertification, which were the main challenges for 21 of the 23 countries; 69 projects addressed biodiversity, the main challenge for 16 countries (Table 7). Thirty percent of projects in the Sahel addressed land degradation as did 25 percent of projects in the Sudan-Guinea savanna, where a larger share of projects addressed threats to biodiversity (28 compared to 21 percent in the Sahel). Furthermore, for 30 percent of the projects reviewed, the results framework contains indicators on deforestation and land degradation, including sustainable land management. Indicators on threats to terrestrial biodiversity are included in 23 percent of the projects reviewed. These findings confirm the strong alignment of GEF support to the main environmental challenges in the biomes. 62. GEF interventions consider country socioeconomic priorities. In addition to sharing many common environmental challenges, the 23 countries in the two biomes face pressing socioeconomic challenges, affecting the severity of the environmental issues at hand. Most are least developed countries, and 13 have gone or are going through situations of sociopolitical instability. Not surprisingly in this context, national infrastructure and socioeconomic development investments are often given priority over environmental conservation initiatives. In Guinea, government-sponsored bauxite mining attracts a growing number of workers, increasing pressure on the scarce natural resources of the northern part of the country. In Uganda, economic development is often favored over biodiversity conservation: where infrastructure such as oil fields and related investments such as roads and airstrips are developed, forests are heavily encroached upon. A similar dynamic is observed in Guinea-Bissau with at push from the central, district, and community levels toward oil and mining explorations in protected areas. Cognizant of beneficiaries’ livelihood needs, project documents are beginning to capture the socioeconomic dimension of GEF interventions. Thirty percent of the project result frameworks reviewed (n = 358) have indicators on alternative livelihoods and income generation/diversification. Sixteen percent of projects measured resilience in their logical framework, and an additional 12 percent measured food security.

Table 7: National projects addressing the main environmental challenges in the biomes

land

- arine

hange M

isasters

esources D and uality

Country R

egradation

uantity

Waste Waste

ollution

D Mining

esources

uality and

anagement Q

iodiversity P

Threats Threats to R

B Q

ater

Deforestation

Desertification eef

Climate

W Coastal and coral Natural

Threats Threats in to R

Threats Threats to

Land Degradation Water Air Benin 6 3 2 1 1 Burkina Faso 9 4 5 2 1 1 Cameroon 4 5 9 3 3 2 1 Central African Republic 2 1 1 1 1 1 Chad 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 Cote d'Ivoire 5 1 2 1 3 Eritrea 1 2 1 2 1 Ethiopia 7 6 6 1 Gambia 7 3 2 1 1 Ghana 4 7 8 1 5 1 1 Guinea 6 2 1 1 2 Guinea-Bissau 2 3 4 1 Liberia 6 1 4 2 Mali 7 4 5 Mauritania 3 8 2 1 2 1 Niger 5 5 3 1 1 Nigeria 10 5 3 3 1 Senegal 10 5 2 1 1 1 Sierra Leone 5 1 2 Sudan 8 1 1 Togo 2 1 Uganda 7 7 4 1 1 1 Total 120 77 69 18 15 8 9 7 4 3 1 Source: Adapted from UNEP 2008; PMIS data. Blue cells indicate that projects address the common underlying challenge of climate change; green cells indicate that projects address one main challenge in the country; yellow cells indicate that projects address a challenge that is not among the main ones for the country; red cells indicate that no projects address any of the main challenges for the country. Several projects address multiple challenges.

63. In the much-needed areas of institutional development and governance, more than half the projects reviewed focus on policy frameworks and skills building. GEF support can be classified into three main categories: knowledge and information, institutional capacity, and implementing strategies. These areas of GEF support interact, complement, and reinforce each other, collectively contributing toward addressing environmental stress reduction and improved environmental status (GEF IEO 2013). GEF institutional support in the biomes mostly focused on helping countries develop their respective environmental policy, legal, and regulatory

frameworks; on building skills and capacities; and on introducing innovative technologies and approaches (Table 8). All of these are domains in which the GEF has traditionally invested most of its financing and technical expertise, demonstrating its comparative advantage and additionality. The majority of GEF interventions in the biomes included indicators in their results framework on capacity, institutions, and governance. Sixty-nine percent of projects had indicators measuring capacity and skills development; 68 percent had indicators for the development of plans, policies, laws, and regulations; and 45 percent included indicators on knowledge management and awareness raising. Table 8: Intervention typologies in the two biomes Intervention Typology No. (%) area Knowledge generation 135 38 Knowledge Information sharing and access 120 34 and Awareness raising 89 25 information Skills building 208 58 Monitoring and evaluation 95 27 Policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks 220 61 Institutional Governance structures and arrangements 69 19 capacity Informal processes for trust building and conflict resolution 3 1 Technologies and approaches 185 52 Implementing Implementing mechanisms and bodies 112 31 strategies Financial mechanisms for implementation and sustainability 52 15 Note: n = 358. Several projects address multiple areas of intervention.

3. RESULTS AND SUSTAINABILITY

3.1 Performance

64. Projects in the two biomes and in Africa overall received lower performance ratings than the overall GEF portfolio. Analysis of terminal evaluation ratings from the most recent IEO Annual Performance Report (APR) 2019 database shows that projects in the biomes significantly underperformed when compared with the overall GEF portfolio on most dimensions (Figure 10). Figure 10: APR rating comparisons

69% Execution Quality 74% 81%

72% Implementation Quality 74% 81%

59% M&E Implementation 55% 65%

63% M&E Design 62% 69%

46% Sustainability 50% 63%

68% Outcomes 73% 80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

SCCE biomes (n=149) AFR (n=333) Overall GEF (n=1095)

65. Focusing on the two dimensions of interest to this evaluation—project outcomes and likelihood of their sustainability—68 percent of projects were rated as having outcomes in the ’Satisfactory’ range;7 this is a significantly lower percentage than for the overall GEF portfolio (80 percent of projects) and for the Africa region (73 percent of projects). Ratings for the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes at project closure followed a similar pattern: only 46 percent of projects in the biomes were rated in the ‘Likely’ range for sustainability,8 compared to 63 percent of the overall GEF portfolio and 50 percent of the Africa portfolio of projects. It is useful to note that outcomes and their likely sustainability have been found to be statistically correlated (GEF IEO 2019a). The statistical test for proportionality for this evaluation indicates that the outcome and sustainability ratings for the three comparators—the overall GEF, Africa,

7 This range includes three ratings: Marginally Satisfactory, Satisfactory and Highly Satisfactory. 8 This range includes two ratings: Moderately Sustainable and Likely Sustainable.

and the two biomes—differ in their proportions. This difference between the cohorts is statistically significant: the p-value for the outcome and sustainability differ, but in both cases, the p-value is less than 0.0005. 66. These findings re-affirm the evaluative evidence collected by the IEO from 2008 to 2014 through country portfolio evaluations in the two biomes. In 2008, the IEO found that the results of GEF support to Cameroon were at risk because of weak financial, institutional, and socioeconomic sustainability. The Cameroon country portfolio evaluation recommended that the GEF further support trust funds as an approach to improving the financial sustainability of protected areas (GEF IEO 2009c). More recent reporting on the GEF portfolios in Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania, consolidated in the seventh Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report, concluded that the likelihood of sustainability has been highest when pursued through fostering institutional and individual capacity development and the promotion of livelihood activities through community-based approaches, such as those financed by the Small Grants Programme (GEF IEO 2014a). The report also found that the most successful efforts for promoting the sustainability of outcomes have been those aimed at developing local capacities as well as at linking local community benefits to improved environmental management. 67. While projects in Africa tend to have lower ratings, more recent terminal evaluations of GEF-4 to GEF-6 completed projects in the biomes have accorded better ratings than terminal evaluations for earlier projects completed between 2007 and 2014. These findings are consistent with recent IEO analyses, according to which projects in Africa are less likely to be rated in the likely range for outcome sustainability than projects elsewhere but have improved significantly from GEF-3 onward (GEF IEO 2019a). 68. Multifocal projects perform better on outcomes but lower on sustainability. A larger percentage of multifocal (85 percent) than single focal area projects (ranging from 45 to 75 percent by focal area) were rated as having satisfactory outcomes. However, only 38 percent were rated as having outcomes likely to be sustained, compared to a range of 43 percent (biodiversity) to 52 percent (land degradation) of single focal area projects. Land degradation, biodiversity, and climate change had a higher percentage of projects with satisfactory outcomes and a lower percentage of projects with likely sustainability ratings (Table 9). Table 9: Outcome and sustainability ratings by focal area Satisfactory Likely Focal Area Total Outcomes Sustainability Biodiversity 65% 43% 46 Climate change 72% 47% 41 International waters 45% 50% 12 Land degradation 75% 52% 25 Multi focal area 85% 38% 14 POPs 50% 45% 11 Total 68% 46% 149

69. A larger percentage of international waters projects are rated as likely to be sustainable compared to the percentage of projects rated as having in the ’Satisfactory’ range for achievement of outcomes. Information collected in Guinea on the International Waters Regional Project Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin (GEF ID 1093) supports this finding. This project aimed at supporting the nine participating riparian countries of the Niger River basin in their efforts to work together to ensure the sustainable development and management of the basin's land and water resources, including protection of its unique dryland environment and associated biodiversity. Interviewees at the Direction Nationale de l’Hydraulique in Conakry reported that although only a small project component focusing on small-scale interventions and capacity-building activities was implemented in Guinea, the project has succeeded in introducing an environmental and social management framework for screening all pilot projects and microgrant activities in the country. A microgrant operational manual with environmental screening criteria, notification and procedural rules for implementation, and institutional responsibilities for the parties involved is being used at the community level for screening and implementation of investments to be funded through the recently established national agency for financing community development plans (Agence Nationale de Financement des Collectivités Locales). 70. From an analysis of terminal evaluations of completed projects, the SIDS SCCE found that a larger percentage of regional projects were rated in the ’Satisfactory’ range for outcomes and ’Likely’ range for sustainability as compared with national projects (GEF IEO 2020). A similar analysis in this evaluation found that although more regional projects in the two biomes are rated in the Satisfactory/Likely range for outcomes, sustainability, and monitoring and evaluation design and implementation, a larger percentage of national projects are rated in the ’Satisfactory’ range for implementation and execution quality (Figure 11). Figure 11: APR ratings in the ‘Satisfactory/Likely’ range for national versus regional projects

62% Execution Quality 72%

67% Implementation Quality 74%

68% M&E Implementation 55%

69% M&E Design 61%

54% Sustainability 43%

72% Outcomes 66%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

SCCE biomes - Regional only (n=40) SCCE biomes - National only (n=109)

71. Observed postcompletion sustainability of four out of the five field-verified regional projects was positive. In two cases, the sustainability ratings changed from negative (outcomes were rated unlikely or moderately unlikely to be sustained) at completion to positive (sustainability of outcomes rated in the likely range) at postcompletion. These rating improvements seem more attributable to the relevance of the technologies introduced than to the fact that they were introduced by a regional project. Integrated pest and pollution management training in Mali provided by the regional project Reducing Dependence on POPs and other Agro-Chemicals in the Senegal and Niger River Basins through Integrated Production, Pest and Pollution Management (GEF ID 1420) introduced a number of biological control agents (Azadiractha Indica flour and crushed seeds, root powder of Securidaca longepedonculata, chopped fresh organs from Physalis, broth of fresh organs of Hyptis suaveoalens, and chopped fresh organs of Cassia nigricans). These agents provide economic and health benefits in terms of reduced cost in pest control and reduced poisoning among human populations, as well as environmental benefits in terms of increased biodiversity. The regional project Adaptation to Climate and Coastal Change in West Africa - Responding to Shoreline Change and Its Human Dimensions in West Africa through Integrated Coastal Area Management (GEF ID 2614) addresses coastal dune sustainability, which is one of the major environmental problems in Mauritania. The project piloted a method of reconstituting the ecosystem and biodiversity of a part of the coastal dune, making it possible to secure the city of Nouakchott against ocean incursion.

3.2 Outcomes and Sustainability

72. The GEF supports activities that directly or indirectly contribute to the improvement of environmental status or address drivers of environmental degradation, or both. The impact of GEF support may occur immediately as a result of project activities, but often change takes years (or even decades) after a project is completed. By analyzing how GEF support contributes to progress toward impact, the IEO can assess the extent to which this support is likely to lead to impact and ultimately sustainability in the long term. Progress toward impact is assessed through the extent to which the broader adoption of GEF interventions and outcomes by governments and other stakeholders takes place during implementation or at project end. Broader adoption pertains to the transformational processes by which the widespread implementation of interventions aids the achievement of global environmental benefits. This may take place in different ways, specifically, mainstreaming, replication, scaling-up, sustaining, and market change (box 1). This approach has been used by the IEO since 2013 to assess broader adoption of outcomes and progress toward impact of GEF interventions (GEF IEO 2013).

Box 1: Mechanisms of broader adoption Mainstreaming: When information, lessons, or specific aspects of a GEF initiative become part of a stakeholder’s own initiatives, such as through laws, policies, regulations, or programs. This may occur through governments, through development organizations and other sectors, or both. Replication: When a GEF-supported intervention is copied at a similar scale, often in other locations. Scaling-up: When a GEF-supported intervention is implemented at a larger geographical scale, often expanded to include more political, administrative, economic, or ecological components. This allows concerns that cannot be resolved at lower scales to be addressed and promotes the spread of GEF contributions to areas contiguous to the original project site. Sustaining: When a GEF-supported intervention or outcome is continued by the original beneficiaries without GEF support so they can continue to reap the benefits. Market change: When a GEF-supported intervention influences an economic demand and supply shift to more environmentally friendly products and services.

73. In APR 2017, the IEO conducted a desk review of postcompletion verification reports (n = 53). According to the analysis, outcomes of most GEF projects are sustained during the postcompletion period. In addition, a large percentage of projects achieve environmental stress reduction and broader adoption at postcompletion. The review concluded that the key factors that contribute to higher outcomes and broader adoption at postcompletion are strong levels of stakeholder buy-in, political support, availability of financial support for follow-up, and sustained efforts on the part of the national executing agency. A few projects regressed to a lower outcome sustainability level postcompletion because of a lack of financial support for follow-up, low political support, low institutional capacities, low stakeholder buy-in, and flaws in the project’s theory of change. Importantly, catalytic processes of broader adoption such as mainstreaming, replication, and scaling-up, and/or sustaining project outcomes were observed in a larger percentage of projects at postcompletion than at implementation completion (GEF IEO 2019a). 74. Overall, completed projects in the biomes showed lower broader adoption rates than those of the overall GEF portfolio analyzed as part of the APR 2017. For 49 of the 67 projects for which terminal evaluations were reviewed for sustainability in the biomes, no actions were taken during implementation to stimulate broader adoption of project outcomes postcompletion (Figure 12). When present, the most prevalent processes implemented for broader adoption were mainstreaming (25 percent) and sustaining (22 percent) in projects indicating that measures for broader adoption to occur had been fully or partially implemented while the projects were ongoing. This trend is comparable to the APR 2017 finding mentioned, according to which broader adoption of project outcomes occurred through sustaining and mainstreaming processes, at 49 and 40 percent, respectively.

Figure 12: Evidence of broader adoption having taken place during project implementation 100% 90% 98% 77% 81% 80% 73% Yes (implemented and/ or showing results | Some concrete 60% action taken but not (yet) fully 40% implemented) 22% 25% 16% 20% 8% Mentioned / intended but no 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% detailed plans or discussions (yet) 0%

Nothing has taken place

Note: Sustainability cohort (n = 67).

75. The likelihood of broader adoption taking place postcompletion increases when concrete actions are undertaken to this end during implementation—such as the detailed design of follow-up activities, or the establishment of governance structures or financing windows. In the biomes, these actions translated in concrete sustaining, mainstreaming, replication, and scaling-up initiatives implemented in 18 to 24 percent of the projects reviewed (Figure 13). Figure 13: Likelihood of broader adoption taking place postcompletion 100% 100% Yes, follow-on interventions 74% 80% 64% 70% designed / governance structures 58% 60% in place / financing in place No, but detailed discussion / 40% 24% 19% 18% 18% planning taking place 9% 13%10% 20% 7%5% 4%4% 4% 0% Only mentions and intentions, but no detailed discussions or plans

Nothing planned or taking place

Note: Sustainability cohort (n = 67).

76. Demonstrating sustainability takes time, as evidenced by higher observed sustainability of outcomes at postcompletion than at the terminal evaluation stage. This finding supports the APR 2017 conclusion as well as a similar conclusion from the SIDS SCCE (GEF IEO 2020). Field visits to 16 completed projects during the country case studies—including to one regional project visited both in Guinea and Mali—showed that 14 projects demonstrated maintained or improved sustainability postcompletion (Table 10). These improvements, documented in the country case studies presented in volume 2 of this report, are attributable to the quality of project design as well as to positive changes in the context occurring postcompletion.

Table 10: Postcompletion sustainability ratings for field-verified projects in country studies Terminal Evaluation Observed Sustainability Rating Country GEF ID Sustainability Rating Postcompletion 1877 negative positive 1093 Guinea positive positive (regional) 1273 positive positive 1830 positive negative 1175 negative negative Uganda 2140 negative negative (regional) 1258 positive positive (regional) 2459 negative positive Mauritania 2614 negative positive (regional) 3379 positive negative negative on infrastructure but positive for 1253 negative livelihoods 1420 Mali negative positive (regional) 1152 — positive 3763 — negative 942 negative positive Nigeria 1503 positive positive Note: Positive sustainability includes likely and moderately likely ratings; negative the unlikely and moderately unlikely ones. Green-highlighted text indicates improved rating postcompletion, red means the rating has worsened.

77. Both context- and project-related factors were at play in the two cases where sustainability worsened. The field-verified Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use (GED ID 1830) project in Uganda had a lower sustainability rating at postcompletion; this was attributable to a series of contextual factors including the government prioritizing infrastructure and economic development over conservation of protected areas, political interference, and the limited allocation of funds to the environment sector at both the national and district levels. The SIP: Participatory Environmental Protection and Poverty Reduction in the Oases of Mauritania (GEF ID 3379) project showed lower sustainability attributable to the high costs and inappropriateness of the approaches and technologies introduced. The project aimed at improving the livelihoods of oases residents, farmers, and herders by (1) significantly reducing land degradation and enhancing land and water productivity through targeted on-the- ground investments, and (2) promoting environmentally friendly income-generating activities and energy-saving options. The water-lifting and irrigation systems introduced by the projects, including drip irrigation and motorized pumping systems, have not survived because they were either too complex, too costly to operate, or both.

3.3 Factors influencing Outcome Sustainability

78. This section looks at the factors that contribute or hinder outcome sustainability. The discussion starts from an analysis of available terminal evaluations with ratings on four dimensions—financial, institutional, sociopolitical, and environmental—affecting the likelihood of project outcome sustainability. It then explores in depth a wider array of factors, using evidence from previous IEO analyses, from the 67 terminal evaluations in the sustainability cohort, and from the country case studies. 79. Fifty-two percent of the terminal evaluations from the APR 2019 cohort of projects completed between 2007 and 2014 (n = 371) have ratings. A subset of 29 percent of these is of projects completed in Africa, 12 percent of which is of projects in the biomes. These three cohorts can be compared to identify if any of the four dimensions are more promiment in influencing outcome sustainability. 80. Financial sustainability is an issue in Sub-Saharan Africa overall and is particularly acute in the biomes. Across the GEF portfolio, for those projects for which these ratings are available, more than 80 percent of projects were rated as having outcomes that were likely to be sustained in terms of their sociopolitical, institutional, and environmental dimensions; however, only 72 percent were so rated with regard to financial sustainability. The same trend is observed when looking at the Africa and biomes subsets of this cohort; in fact, their financial sustainability ratings are even lower (Figure 14). In fact, financial sustainability differs most across all three cohorts. Statistical testing for proportionality conducted on these results indicates that these four dimensions differ in proportionality across the cohorts by varying degrees: financial (p-value = 0.001027), political (p-value = 0.1451), environmental (p-value = 0.2274), institutional (p-value = 0.9791). Limited or lack of postproject financing has also emerged as a context-related hindering factor in five out of the six country case studies, the exception being Nigeria (annex 3). Figure 14: APR 2019 Sustainability dimensions in the biomes

71% Environmental 79% 83%

82% Institutional 80% 81%

71% Political 74% 82%

46% Financial 57% 72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

SCCE biomes (n=28/88) AFR (n=97/208) Overall GEF (n=371/717)

81. On the positive side, likelihood of institutional sustainability emerged as the most prominent dimension, rated above 80 percent both for Africa and the biomes, and comparable to the overall GEF cohort. These positive ratings suggest that the investments made by the GEF in building new and/or supporting existing institutional structures and capacities in the biomes are paying off. 82. A more in depth analysis needs to go beyond the four sustainability dimensions discussed above. The APR 2017 review of postcompletion verifications identified six main hindering factors, observed in those cases where outcomes were not sustained: (1) lack of financial support for the maintenance of infrastructure or follow-up; (2) lack of sustained efforts from the executing agency; (3) inadequate political support including limited progress on the adoption of legal and regulatory measures; (4) low institutional capacities of key agencies; (5) low levels of stakeholder buy-in; and (6) flaws in the theory of change of projects. These factors were observed in the biomes as well, as the analysis of the 67 terminal evaluations of projects in the sustainability cohort indicates. 83. On the positive side, data from the sustainability cohort analysis point at “a strong buy- in and a strong sense of project ownership among key stakeholders” (30 percent) and “good coordination with/continuity of previous or current initiatives” (27 percent) as the most prominent project-related factors positively impacting the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes. These factors are especially important for projects implemented in the Sahel (44 and 56 percent, respectively). Other project-related contributing factors that emerged from the sustainability cohort analysis include “good project management or co-management” (26 percent); “good engagement of key stakeholders/ stakeholders involved at design and decision- making” (24 percent); and “timely adaptive management” (23 percent). While not as pronounced in the Sudan-Guinea Savanna, “highly relevant technology/ approach” was identified as an important factor in 25 percent of the Sahel projects. On the negative, “poor project design” greatly hinders the prospects for sustainability (33 percent overall, 18 in Sahel and 45 percent in the Sudan-Guinea Savanna projects), “insufficient time for implementation” (30 percent), and “poor project management” (21 percent). 84. The predominant context-related contributing factor in the biomes is “national government support” (41 overall, 50 percent for Sahel and 38 percent for Sudan-Guinea Savanna projects). “Unfavorable political conditions/events” and “low institutional capacities” come next as context-related factors hindering the likelihood of sustainability (33 and 29 percent, respectively). “Unfavorable political conditions/events” is particularly important for projects implemented in the Sahel (56 percent) and “low institutional capacities to implement activities” for projects implemented in the Sudan-Guinea Savanna biome (41 percent). Of all these factors, “lack of financial support” and “poor project design” were the most frequently observed factors in the countries and projects visited by this evaluation (Table 11). A detailed summary of case study findings on the observed factors is presented in annex 3.

Table 11: Factors hindering sustainability observed in country case studies Guinea Factors Identified in APR 2017 Mauritania Mali Nigeria Guinea Uganda Bissau Flaws in the projects’ theory of change x x x x x /poor design Lack of financial support x x x x Inadequate political support x x x No continuation from executing x x agency Low institutional capacities x Low stakeholder buy-in x

85. Project design matters for sustainability. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, project design is the among the most prominent factors that could influence positive or negative sustainability depending on its quality. Design that promotes sustainability takes into due consideration the country socioeconomic and political context as well as the local conditions and knowledge, and includes measures and activities designed to support from both the financial and institutional standpoint the continued delivery of outcomes postcompletion. Field observations in Uganda, Mauritania, and Nigeria indicate that project designs that included long-lasting infrastructure investments requiring limited associated operating costs tend to be more sustainable than investments in capacity-building activities where the trainees cannot apply what they learned due to lack of funds postcompletion. In Uganda, protected area district officials from the Ministry of Water and Environment stated that they could not apply the skills they learned because of limited local funding to regularly monitor forest degradation and to provide technical support to scale up afforestation efforts. Lack of funding could have been mitigated at design by including post-projects revenue generation activities and/or measures such as taxes or other financial incentive mechanisms. 86. An example of inadequate project design was observed in Tolo, Guinea. There, the sustainability of the positive environmental outcomes achieved in the area around the source of the Bafing River, reforested with support from the Community-based Land Management (GEF ID 1877) project after relocating the farming communities to a nearby watershed, is threatened by insufficient groundwater. In this case, no technical feasibility study to assess water availability and its seasonal variation during the year, or other groundwater stock analyses were conducted as part of project design. 87. The Bafing River is the source to half the water going to the Senegal River. Deforestation around the river source is caused by land clearing for agriculture. After intense participatory consultations, farmers agreed to relocate to a watershed at 2 kilometers from the river source, where communities can practice horticulture. This relocation was informed by a socioeconomic study followed by negotiations that provided an agreement for the distribution of land in the watershed and included compensation measures. Years after the relocation, the ecosystem has

been slowly rehabilitated through intense reforestation measures. This positive outcome is evidenced by satellite images taken in 2012 and 2018 showing increased vegetation directly adjacent to the perimeter of the river source and decreased agricultural activity on the hillslopes (Figure 15). Figure 15: Satellite images, Bafing River source—2012, 2018

88. A quantitative analysis of annual satellite imagery using the annual mean Normalized Difference Vegetation Index from 2000 to 2018 also demonstrates increasing levels of vegetation cover/productivity throughout the time period (Figure 16). This trend is juxtaposed against a slight decreasing trend in rainfall. These data provide evidence that the restoration efforts around the river source are having positive effects on the vegetation. Continuation of these positive environmental outcomes is threatened by the limited access to water in the relocation site. Water scarcity remains the key impediment for agriculture in the watershed where the farmers have relocated. The mission found this area underused. Farmers reported that despite the investments made, they only have enough irrigation water for six months per year. Figure 16: Time series of vegetation productivity and rainfall in the project period—Bafing River source

89. Designing profitable beneficiary-relevant alternative livelihood activities and working with existing decentralized institutions to include environmental considerations in local development plans emerged as important sustainability factors in the biomes. Both the terminal evaluation review of sustainability cohort projects and the postcompletion verifications conducted in country case studies added a new set of both project- and context- related factors that impact sustainability of outcomes to the factors identified in previous IEO analyses (annex 3). Of these, the most frequently observed project-related contributing factor was “designing alternative livelihood activities that are profitable for and corresponding to beneficiary concrete needs,” observed through several examples of both successes and failures in all the countries visited except for Guinea Bissau. In Mali, alternative livelihood activities provided income-generating support for mills, but equipment for the processing of nontimber forest products introduced by the SPWA-BD: Expansion and Strengthening of Mali's Protected Area System (GEF ID 3763) project failed two years after completion as the equipment was no longer operational. Lack of savings for repairs and lack of working capital, as well as lack of raw materials and markets in nonwood forest products processing explain the failure of this activity. As a contrast, in Mauritania, the SIP: Participatory Environmental Protection and Poverty Reduction in the Oases of Mauritania (GEF ID 3379) project introduced small-scale infrastructure investments (solar pumps) within the financial reach of households in the oases. These have been maintained by the households, with auto investment in new structures postproject by the households themselves. 90. Field verifications in country studies shed light on a few more important factors affecting the observed sustainability in the biomes. The most interesting was “working with existing decentralized institutions through their local development plans,” observed in Mali, Guinea, and Guinea Bissau. Setting up intercommunal institutions as was done in Guinea with the sustainable land management of a transboundary watershed, or in the case of Mauritania with the monitoring and management association of the Gourma elephant protected area, were important factors in sustainability. Another factor was the involvement of women in the alternative livelihood activities as well as in small infrastructure management groups. Women’s direct engagement in the management of these activities contributed to their continuation in Guinea, Mauritania, and Guinea Bissau. This important factor is discussed in greater detail in the section on gender in this report. 91. The most interesting context-related factor for sustainability emerged in this evaluation is related to country insecurity, emergence of fragile political, or socioeconomic situations, observed in Mali, Guinea, and Mauritania. While fragility negatively affects outcomes and sustainability in various ways when it suddenly emerges, these negative effects tend to occur in the capital and other urban areas, where most of the population resides. This evaluation found that in rural areas these negative effects tend not to be felt. Even in countries like Mali that are fragile since many years, financially viable and beneficiary-relevant alternative livelihoods activities tend to continue. This aspect is further discussed in the section dedicated to fragility in this report.

92. Consideration of risks and mitigation measures are important drivers and were well documented in a majority of projects. A comprehensive discussion about context-related factors of sustainability needs to consider the fact that if risks are not accounted for at design, their eventual occurrence during implementation is likely hindering both outcomes and sustainability postcompletion. Risks include socioeconomic and political as well as climate- related ones. The review of design documents of both the relevance and sustainability cohorts indicates that 85 percent of projects included risk considerations and related mitigation measures, in compliance with GEF requirements. Of these, 71 percent indicated in detail both climatic and nonclimatic risks in project documents. An picture of improvement emerges when narrowing the analysis to the sustainability cohort projects. A large majority of the projects reviewed (86 percent) included risk considerations at design. Sixty-six percent of projects indicated climatic as well as nonclimatic risks in the project preparation document. An additional 30 percent included some mention of risks although incomplete or with some serious omissions. 93. Risks mentioned in project documents focused on institutional or governance risk (73 percent), specifically pertaining to institutional arrangements as well as lack of or limited capacity. Project design documents also referred to implementation risks in 28 cases in terms of stakeholder engagement at all government levels (local, municipal, ministerial, national). Several projects mentioned as a major risk to project success the inability of stakeholders to work effectively or collaborate. Twenty-five projects cited climatic and environmental risks to projects implementation. Most of these projects discussed extended drought periods, advancing desertification in the Sahel biome, and natural disasters as attributable to climate change. Financial or fiduciary risk, or both, were also identified in 24 projects, mainly in the form of limited availability of funds for cofinancing either from the government or the private sector. 94. Risk mitigation measures discussed at project design focused on enhancing community engagement and stakeholder participation, increasing technical and institutional capacity, and focusing on cost effectiveness. The Institutional Strengthening and Resource Mobilization for Mainstreaming Integrated Land and Water Management Approaches into Development Programs in Africa (GEF ID 1325) indicated that the project would be implemented in a decentralized community-driven development process so that it would not take on the aspect of a top-down, government-led program, and addressed community concern and skepticism that the project would deliver its intended outcomes. The Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and Its Transition Areas, Mopti Region (GEF ID 1152) project in Mali aimed at mitigating risks linked to (1) land tenure issues, and to the difficulty of preparing and implementing common programs involving one or several village communities (collective sites); (2) the inadequate mobilization of the people to undertake work to restore and protect the natural resources on the village lands, which could cause their planning, implementation, and monitoring/sustainability efforts to fail; and (3) the inadequate account taken of transhumant or semisedentary herders, who do not always share the same objectives as the sedentary populations in a typically pastoral zone

with a strong agro-pastoral character. Mitigation measures to address the above-mentioned risks include socioeconomic forecasts in order to better understand contextual constraints, such as land use dynamics and the various interests at stake in terms of natural resources management. In that project, measures were to be put in place in advance and in conjunction with the various users to prevent conflicts, mainly relating to water, land, or grazing land access.

3.4 Influence of Environment and Development on Sustainability

95. Little consideration is given at the project design stage to socioeconomic and environmental synergies and trade-offs that could influence sustainability. The review of design documents in the relevance cohort indicates that only 15 percent of projects (n = 52) had some mention of trade-offs and/or synergies at the design stage. Twenty-nine of these projects fully discussed synergies and trade-offs. Eight also addressed trade-off-related mitigation measures. Twenty-two projects focused on synergies with similar initiatives from previous and current projects/programs. Most of these mention either addressed trade-offs or fostered synergies through coordination between different sectors, with other ongoing initiatives, or between long- and short-term impacts. For example, the LCB-NREE Chad Child Project: Integrated Management of Natural Resources in the Chadian Part of the Lake Chad Basin (GEF ID 9476) sought to enhance synergies between environmental, agricultural, and livelihood outcomes and provide synergies with the regional water project in the area. The Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and Its Transition Areas, Mopti Region in Mali (GEF ID 1152) aimed at the restoration, conservation, and sustainable management of the ecosystems and their biodiversity in the Inner Delta of the Niger River and its transition zones. The project sought to ensure synergy with other biodiversity conservation and land restoration projects implemented by the GEF, the World Bank, and UNDP in the Niger River Delta. 96. Examples of promoting synergies or addressing trade-offs between long- and short-term impacts include the Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project - Micro Watershed and Environmental Management Project in Nigeria (GEF ID 942) and the Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project in Guinea-Bissau (GEF ID 1221). Both projects recognized the need for short- and long-term technical assistance to enhance project sustainability and build local capacity, as well as the need for an intensive participatory planning process to ensure greater community inclusiveness and ownership of decision making. Only 12 projects discussed synergies and/or trade-offs between development and environment, focusing on socioeconomic impacts and livelihoods. Projects targeted synergies between sustainable natural resource management of land, watersheds, protected areas, wildlife, and local benefits. Two of those projects mentioned mitigation measures toward the environment and identified development trade-offs.

97. Findings from case studies and interviews consistently indicated the importance of a nexus approach to environmental and socioeconomic objectives and between short- and long-term planning in enhancing sustainability. Case studies indicate that when systemic provisions and measures for alternative livelihood activities are put in place and there is a positive environment-socioeconomic nexus, the chances of sustaining the environmental benefits of project interventions were much improved (Box 2). Box 2: Examples of positive influence of environment/development synergies on sustainability Mali: The regional project Reducing Dependence on POPs and other Agro-Chemicals in the Senegal and Niger River Basins through Integrated Production, Pest and Pollution Management (GEF ID 1420) resulted in economic, health, and environmental benefits by reducing the cost of pest control in market gardening, leading to reduced poisoning among the populace and increased biodiversity. In the project entitled Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas, Mopti Region (GEF ID 1152), the regeneration of bourgou, an aquatic grass, through nurseries and replanting had a major impact on the economy and on community livelihoods. The system of regeneration exploits the synergy between the environment (increased biodiversity, including a return of migrating birds and increased fish stocks) and increased income generation (livestock feed, increased fishing, etc.). Where the nexus does not exist, however, or where projects introduced alternative livelihood activities that are not economically viable from a beneficiary standpoint, the sustainability of any related environmental benefits is compromised. Thus, the same biodiversity conservation project provided an example of a lack of nexus thinking where sustainability was compromised. Mechanizing bourgou hay making for livestock feed failed, as farmers could not afford the costs of operating the equipment. Similarly, efforts to replant forests with doum palm (Hyphaene Thebaica) were unsuccessful, because of the long time these palms take to grow. Field observations in Mali also indicated that once a positive socioeconomic-environment nexus is ensured, activities and benefits controlled by individuals, households, and/or families are more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes compared with community- managed schemes. Guinea-Bissau: The Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project (GEF ID 1221) and a series of replication projects (including Small Grants Programme projects) focused on the water-energy-food nexus through water drilling and installation of wells and water pumps. The water is mainly used for drinking, but there is some community-based horticulture as well. The improved drinking water has positive impacts on human health and reduced the number of cases of diarrhea among children. The two regional projects reviewed—Combating Living Resource Depletion and Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea Current LME through Ecosystem-based Regional Actions and Adaptation to Climate Change - Responding to Shoreline Change and its human dimensions in West Africa through integrated coastal area management (GEF IDs 1188 and 2614, respectively)—have used a watershed management approach for land use planning, natural disaster mitigation, and erosion control. Mauritania: In the Community-based Watershed Management Project (GEF ID 2459), residents have derived clear economic, as well as environmental, benefits from infrastructure investments made by the project. However, the long-term sustainability of these benefits is compromised by the inability of the local populations and institutions to finance and carry out maintenance activities without the support of follow-up projects or state interventions. In the SIP: Participatory Environmental Protection and Poverty Reduction in the Oases of Mauritania (GEF ID 3379) project, it is reported that small-scale infrastructure investments in solar pumps that are well within the financial reach of oasis households have been maintained with automatic investment in new structures postproject by the households themselves. In contrast, small-scale alternative livelihood activities are no longer functioning, even though these produced economic benefits to households over the short run. These activities were not sustainable because beneficiaries have not been able to generate the requisite operating funds and capital replacement funds to keep the activities running; the beneficiaries did not view this investment as cost effective. Sustainability of small-scale alternative livelihoods depends on the existence of a positive environment-socioeconomic nexus in the medium term. Virtually all alternative livelihood investments in Mauritania have proved to be nonsustainable, even though they produced economic benefits to households in the short run.

3.5 Cross-cutting Issues

Gender 98. Gender is increasingly incorporated in GEF interventions in the biomes. To determine the extent to which gender has been taken into consideration in GEF programming in the two biomes, the evaluation completed a quality at entry review of design documents of both the relevance and sustainability cohorts (n = 358). The assessment verified whether projects had completed, before Chief Executive Officer (CEO) endorsement, • a gender analysis,

• a gender mainstreaming plan, and • a gender-responsive results framework. 99. As shown in Figure 17, a progressively increasing number of projects are undertaking a gender analysis before CEO endorsement; this number more than doubled between GEF-4 and GEF-6. The same trend can be observed for the existence of a gender mainstreaming plan and of a gender-responsive results framework. Interestingly, a larger percentage of projects have a gender mainstreaming plan in place than have conducted a gender analysis: 40 percent versus 25 percent. Figure 17: Gender consideration by GEF Replenishment period 100%

80% Gender analysis at CEO 60% Endorsement Gender mainstreaming strategy 40% or plan at CEO Endorsement Gender responsive Results 20% framework

0% GEF -1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 GEF-6

100. Consideration of gender improved over the GEF phases. Projects in the biomes were reviewed at entry and at completion (for completed projects with terminal evaluations) using a classification followed in recent IEO analyses (GEF IEO 2018a). While over 60 percent of GEF-1 to GEF-3 projects were classified as gender blind, this percentage decreased to 11 percent in GEF-5 and to 6 percent in GEF-6, subsequent to the GEF Gender Mainstreaming Policy coming into effect in May 2011 (GEF 2012). Gender-sensitive projects increased substantially in GEF-5 and GEF-6 (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Gender consideration at entry by GEF replenishment period

GEF-6 6% 38% 49% 6%

GEF-5 1% 11% 50% 36% 3%

GEF-4 57% 36% 7%

GEF-3 64% 33% 3%

GEF-2 60% 40%

GEF -1 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not gender-relevant Gender-blind Gender-aware Gender-sensitive Gender-mainstreamed

101. Gender is being increasingly considered during project implementation even when not explicitly addressed at the design stage. The GEF IEO’s gender evaluation (GEF IEO 2018a) found that consideration of gender at the point of project completion had improved for GEF-1 to GEF-4 projects. The evaluation reported a decrease in number of gender-blind projects and an increase in the number of gender-aware projects, with some increase in gender-sensitive projects. Similarly, projects implemented in the biomes are taking gender into account during project implementation even when it had not been considered at design; this is evidenced by a comparison of gender consideration at project entry and completion. Figure 19 and Figure 20 show consideration of gender at entry and completion for projects with terminal evaluations (n = 134). This comparison shows a shift toward projects being gender aware or gender sensitive at completion. Figure 19: Gender consideration at entry in the biomes

GEF-5 5% 65% 25%

GEF-4 56% 38% 6%

GEF-3 64% 33% 3%

GEF-2 60% 40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not gender-relevant Gender-blind Gender-aware Gender-sensitive

Figure 20: Gender consideration at completion in the biomes

GEF-5 15% 65% 15%

GEF-4 25% 49% 26%

GEF-3 30% 52% 18%

GEF-2 30% 60% 10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not gender-relevant Gender-blind Gender-aware Gender-sensitive

102. Seventy percent of completed projects had evidence of women's inclusion and empowerment emerging during implementation. Gender-disaggregated data in project documents tend to focus on the share of men and women as beneficiaries. No evidence of women being considered or consulted at the design stage emerged from the project documents reviewed. 103. Case studies confirmed that, even when not designed explicitly with gender mainstreaming in mind, all the projects were implemented in a gender-sensitive manner. Specifically, projects demonstrated clear evidence of women’s inclusion and empowerment. Most frequently, women were involved in alternative livelihood activities. Despite countries being at different stages in their development of a gender policy, in general there is no hindrance for stronger gender considerations in GEF projects. Evidence from the Mali and Guinea case studies indicated that women-led alternative livelihood activities have been likely to be sustained. From discussions with stakeholders during site visits in Mali, socially positive impacts were evident. Women felt empowered, as their personal income increased through proceeds from livelihood activities introduced by the GEF projects. Most of these activities visited in Guinea project sites are run by women’s groups, notably the gardening sites supported by the GEF. Continuation of these activities is partly supported by the government. The women’s group in Tougnifily is a member of the government forum for gardening farmers and pays annual membership fee regularly. In return, the group receives technical assistance on horticulture as well as farming tools. Continuation of women-led gardening activities is also due to a strong interest and commitment on the part of the women themselves (Box 3).

Box 3: The Mounafanyi Women Group—Mamou, Guinea The women-owned market gardening group in Mounafanyi consists of 20 women who grow vegetables throughout the year. The group was created with support from the GEF’s Community-based Land Management (GEF ID 1877) project. As of this writing, Mounafanyi has more than $1,000 saved in its bank account. Using the revenues earned from gardening, the group has bought a piece of land to build an elementary school for the members’ children. The women’s cooperative association aims to contribute to the overall socioeconomic development of their communities. An agriculture extension technician residing in the village provides technical advice to the group, connecting the women to available government services for tools and seed supplies.

Resilience 104. Promoting resilience to climate shocks is critical to the geographic region covered by this evaluation, as demonstrated by the large and growing number of adaptation interventions, as well as the considerable amount of LDCF and SCCF funding in the two biomes. In the absence of an official GEF definition of resilience, this evaluation takes resilience to mean the capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation (Béné et al. 2012). 105. Two resilience considerations have been examined in this evaluation. First, the analysis looked at how resilience is considered in the GEF portfolio in the two biomes, whether in terms of (1) risk management, (2) as a cobenefit, or (3) integrated into a multiple benefits framework as explained in Box 4 (STAP 2014). Second, the analysis looked at the core component of the resilience concept in resilience-focused projects, identifying whether resilience was viewed (1) in a static system/engineering sense, (2) as incremental change, or (3) as transformational change. Types of resilience thinking are outlined in 106. Box 5. Box 4: Climate resilience in the GEF Resilience as risk management: A first level of response emerges from pure risk management considerations: sustained delivery of future global environmental benefits is at risk from climate change; therefore, projects ought to be screened for climate risks, and suitable risk management measures should be developed and adopted in project design and implementation. This would increase the resilience of the GEF portfolio to climate change. Such a de-risking approach is now being widely adopted by most multilateral and bilateral funding organizations, starting with the development and adoption of screening tools. Resilience as a cobenefit: GEF focal area interventions offer the opportunity of enhancing resilience of human socioeconomic systems to climate change; it is therefore worth seeking resilience cobenefits of GEF focal area interventions, or in some cases, use approaches practiced in other focal areas, specifically for enhancing the climate resilience of human systems. This is the underlying logic of ecosystem-based adaptation, where ecosystem restoration serves as a means for reducing the vulnerability of human socioeconomic systems. Resilience integrated into a multiple benefits framework: It is increasingly important to develop frameworks and approaches that allow multiple objectives and multiple benefits to be achieved simultaneously across social and natural systems. In this framing, resilience is not seen as an add-on (additional risk to be managed) or a cobenefit, but rather as a system property that needs to be considered together with all of the other system properties, and thus linked to the idea of sustainable development.

Box 5: Types of resilience system thinking Resilience from a systems or engineering perspective (absorptive): This was the original, relatively narrow focus of resilience; the ability of a system to bounce back or return to equilibrium following disturbance, referred to by Holling (1973) as “engineering resilience.” This comes down to absorptive (coping) capacity, which Cutter et al. (2008, p.663) defined as “the ability of the community to absorb event impacts using predetermined coping responses.” Resilience as incremental change (adaptive): Adaptive resilience refers to the various adjustments (incremental changes) that people undergo in order to continue functioning without major qualitative changes in function or structural identity. These incremental adjustments and changes can take many forms (e.g., adopting new farming techniques, change in farming practices, diversifying livelihood bases, engaging in new social networks, etc). These adaptations can be individual or collective, and they can take place at multilevel (intrahousehold, groups of individuals/households, community, etc.). Resilience as transformational change (transformative): Transformational changes often involve shifts in the nature of the system, the introduction of new state variables, and possibly the loss of others, such as when a household adopts a new direction in making a living or when a region moves from an agrarian to a resource extraction economy. It can be a deliberate process, initiated by the people involved, or it can be forced on them by changing environmental or socioeconomic conditions. What the growing body of literature that discusses transformational changes highlights is that the main challenges associated with transformation are not of a technical or technological nature only. Instead, as pointed out by Pelling (2011), these shifts may include a combination of technological innovations, institutional reforms, behavioral shifts, and cultural changes.

107. Resilience is addressed in climate change adaptation projects mostly in the form of climate risk management and as a cobenefit. Support to climate change adaptation through LDCF and SCCF funds aims to strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change in GEF recipient countries. The GEF additionally supports the integration of climate adaptation into development. While all climate change adaptation projects under the LDCF/SCCF trust funds included resilience considerations, 37 percent of nonclimate change adaptation projects showed some evidence of resilience considerations. Resilience considerations in the terminal evaluations of projects completed between 2007 and 2014 focused on risk management and resilience as a cobenefit. When looking at the entire portfolio covered by this evaluation, spanning from GEF-4 to GEF-6, a move to resilience considerations being integrated within the project’s multiple benefits framework was observed. When present, resilience considerations and thinking were in the form of incremental change or in a static system/engineering sense. 108. Almost all the country case studies found evidence of resilience thinking in projects implemented in all five countries. In Mali, resilience considerations were integrated as an incremental change in the multiple benefits framework. The project Integrating Climate Resilience into Agricultural Production for Food Security in Rural Areas (GEF ID 3979) specifically contributed toward achievement of at least four of seven priorities for the agricultural sector contained in the national adaptation program of action. This included the development of an adaptation training package for rural populations, strengthening the resilience of local grain production systems to climate change through the dissemination of seeds adapted to changing climatic conditions, diversification of revenue sources in rural communities as a means to

enhance the food security of vulnerable households, and restoring soil fertility through climate- resilient techniques. 109. In Nigeria, resilience thinking in the completed GEF projects and in the two recent and ongoing projects is integrated as an incremental change in the multiple benefits framework. The SPWA-BD: Niger Delta Biodiversity Project (GEF ID 4090) aimed at increasing the ecological representation and ecosystem resilience of a system of state and community-based protected or specially managed areas. The project’s strategic approach was to mainstream biodiversity management objectives into oil and gas laws, policies, and oil company operations to ensure that mainstreaming actions consider the Niger Delta’s ecological integrity and sustainability. However, there are no clear linkages in project documents to country priorities on resilience, as such priorities have not been established or documented. The Great Green Wall (GGW): Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (GEF ID 4907) is another example of resilience thinking integrated into the multiple benefits framework as an incremental change. With the overall aim of reducing vulnerability to soil erosion in targeted sub-watersheds, the project supports the country’s transformation agenda to achieve greater environmental and economic security. 110. Four of the projects reviewed in Guinea-Bissau have strengthened the resilience of the country and local communities to climate change and reduced their vulnerability to natural disasters and other shocks. Two of the projects completed between 2007 and 2014— Combating Living Resource Depletion and Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea Current LME through Ecosystem-based Regional Actions (GEF ID 1188) and Adaptation to Climate Change - Responding to Shoreline Change and Its Human Dimensions in West Africa through Integrated Coastal Area Management (GEF ID 2614)—together with two more recent projects— Strengthening Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Guinea-Bissau Agrarian and Water Sectors (GEF ID 4019) and Promoting Investments in Small and Medium Scale Renewable Energy Technologies in the Electricity Sector (GEF ID 5331)—have reduced Guinea- Bissau’s fragility and improved national resilience to climate risks. 111. Surprisingly, no evidence of resilience thinking was found in GEF projects in Mauritania, where only the most recent project Improving Climate Resilience of Water Sector Investments with Appropriate Climate Adaptive Activities for Pastoral and Forestry Resources in Southern Mauritania (GEF ID 5190) described clear linkages with country priorities on resilience, with links to the national adaptation program of action and other country strategies in alignment with country priorities. 112. Of the countries visited, Uganda had by far the most developed policies and institutions dealing with climate resilience. Established in 2008, the Climate Change Department operates under the Ministry of Water and Environment and produces estimates of nationally determined contributions and prepares official government pronouncements to contribute to the international discussion on reduction of carbon emissions. Its Adaptation Section coordinates the implementation of adaptation and resilience projects within the country. Despite this

conducive national framework, however, climate resilience is only now beginning to be considered in projects. Notably, resilience was given some prominence in the Integrated Landscape Management for Improved Livelihoods and Ecosystem Resilience in Mount Elgon (GEF ID 5718) project and the SIP: Enabling Environment for SLM to Overcome Land Degradation in the Cattle Corridor of Uganda (GEF ID 3393) project. In the latter project, to reinforce landscape resilience, tree planting was integrated into the landscape to reduce wind speed and increase water retention. The technologies promoted through these projects help keep more water and nutrients in the soil, and conservation agriculture increases maximum use of resources and productivity. The projects also have further enhanced community resilience by organizing community members to undertake joint landscape management activities, while savings groups simultaneously seek to reduce land mortgaging for small loans.

Fragility 113. Overall, the analysis of outcome and sustainability ratings showed no difference between projects implemented in fragile countries in the biomes and those that were not. Moreover, this evaluation found that financially viable and beneficiary-relevant alternative livelihood systems tended to continue even in countries experiencing fragility, conflict, and/or violence—especially when these are located away from capital cities where conflict tends to occur. These findings emerged from the analysis of the thirteen countries in the biomes that are or have been a country affected by Fragility, Conflict, and Violence in the last 10 years (World Bank 2018) (annex 4). The GEF has provided support in all of those countries, including through 44 completed projects, 11 of which were designed or implemented at the time when the country was not fragile. Of the remaining 33 projects, 28 were included in the APR 2019 terminal evaluation data set. Fifty-seven percent of those projects were rated in the satisfactory range for outcomes and 39 percent were rated as having outcomes likely to be sustained. These percentages are comparing to the sustainability cohort of national and regional interventions, where 59 percent of projects were rated in the satisfactory range for outcomes at the time and 39 percent for likely sustainability. When looking at the entire cohort covered by this evaluation (GEF-4 to GEF-6), there were a few cases in which implementation was interrupted because of the emergence of a fragile situation, but that the project continued when the situation returned back to normal. This was the case for 7 percent of GEF-4 to GEF-6 projects and 12 percent of those completed between 2007 and 2014. 114. Fragility has affected the timely delivery of GEF support but has mostly not impacted the outcomes and sustainability of GEF support in the two biomes. The evaluation had the opportunity to visit projects in three countries—Guinea, Mali, and Mauritania—that have been or are still in a fragile situation. The situation in Guinea directly affected timely delivery of GEF support. In 2008–10, there was an interruption of the Support Program for Village Communities World Bank project due to civil unrest following the president’s death; this forced the World Bank to suspend all operations in the country. The Community-based Land Management (GEF ID 1877) and the Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management (GEF ID 1273) projects were

stopped as well, because they were hosted and executed through the World Bank’s Support Program for Village Communities. Interviews with World Bank and government representatives indicated that this unforeseen interruption caused serious delays during implementation, but no other major consequences were discerned. 115. In Mali, the Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and Its Transition Areas, Mopti Region (GEF ID 1152) had delays in implementation of its agreement with the government’s funding arm for local development (Agence Nationale d’Investissement des Collectivités Territoriales), and the political crisis in the project area in 2012 and 2013 greatly penalized the financing of the microprojects. As a result, following the supervisory mission in April 2013, 22 contracts amounting CFAF 110 million ($182,350) were canceled, but other activities continued, as reported in the project’s terminal evaluation. Other projects visited continued operations despite the fragile situation. 116. Mauritania was at one time in 2007 classified with marginal fragility, and its experience demonstrates how insecurity in the region can negatively affected project outcomes. During implementation of the Mauritania component of the regional project Enhancing Conservation of the Critical Network of Sites Required by Migratory Waterbirds on the African/Eurasian Flyways (GEF ID 1258), the stated objective of growing equitable biodiversity-friendly tourism by increasing park revenues was negatively affected by unexpected insecurity issues and political instability linked to the events of August 2008, as well as a number of foreign terrorist attacks on European visitors in other parts of the country. These events brought about a major reduction in tourist numbers and revenues to the entire country—a situation from which, as observed during the field verification mission, Mauritania has not yet fully recovered. 117. The negative effects of emerging fragile situations have not affected profitable and beneficiary-relevant Alternative Livelihood Activities in the biomes. Even in countries such as Mali that have been fragile for many years, financially viable and beneficiary-relevant alternative livelihood activities tend to continue. This finding further informs the discussion of this evaluation on context-related factors that potentially hinder the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes from GEF-supported projects. The Gourma Biodiversity Conservation (GEF ID 1253) project in Mali demonstrated that alternative income-generation activities under individual household control (market gardens, small ruminants, credit associations) seem to have worked—and are still working in the current insecurity situation.

Private Sector 118. Although not initially identified as a cross-cutting issue to be investigated in this evaluation, the private sector emerged from case study analysis as a potentially important cross-cutting element of GEF interventions with an influence on sustainability. The decision was thus made to take a closer look at private sector engagement in GEF-supported projects in the biomes.

119. The private sector has had limited involvement in GEF projects in the biomes; when involved, it has contributed to sustainability and trade-offs. Fifty-six percent of the projects reviewed in this evaluation showed evidence of some form of private sector engagement in the two biome countries. Projects engaged with the private sector either as a stakeholder (32 percent) or for input on project design to promote buy-in from inception (18 percent). Only 15 percent of projects engaged with the private sector during the design stage to secure cofinancing. Of these, only two project terminal evaluations reported evidence of private sector cofinancing provided after project completion. As to involvement during implementation, 25 percent of projects showed evidence of having established public-private partnerships. Fifteen percent of these partnerships were established in the context of existing country regulatory frameworks that enable the private sector to address environmental issues. 120. In the Guinea-Bissau country case study, the private sector was engaged only in the procurement of goods and services for the project itself. In contrast, in Uganda, the private sector was included to help with project sustainability. Specifically, the Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use (GEF ID 1830) project increased private sector investment in park facilities. The private sector was persuaded to develop infrastructure in the parks, such as hotels and camps in the reserve areas, thus generating income and employing local community members. This action enhanced the nexus between environmental conservation and increased income for the private sector, as well as for local government districts through the levy of hotel taxes.

121. The evaluation of GEF support on national environmental laws and policies in selected countries demonstrated the importance of legal reforms and frameworks in paving the way for the private sector to operate in countries (GEF IEO 2018d). An example in the biomes is the Lighting Africa Program Expansion (GEF ID 4495), which demonstrated the importance of GEF support to legal and regulatory frameworks in stimulating the engagement of the private sector. Created to transform the off-grid market by removing barriers and providing market intelligence, the program improved the enabling environment by developing a quality assurance infrastructure; facilitating business-to-business interactions; helping governments address policy barriers; providing business development services; and facilitating access to finance for manufacturers, local distributors, and other stakeholders.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS

4.1 Conclusions

122. The Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes experience severe environmental challenges, driven by climate change among the major underlying causes. The most common challenges are deforestation and land degradation, biodiversity loss, and desertification. Other important challenges in the two biomes include water quality/quantity threats and threats to in-land as well as coastal marine water resources, mining, and natural disasters. The pressing socioeconomic needs of a rapidly growing population compound the challenges at hand. Degradation of agricultural lands coupled with the high variability of rainfall poses obstacles to the food security and poverty reduction efforts in the region. 123. Against this background of constraints, this evaluation examined the relevance, performance, and sustainability of GEF interventions based on a desk review of the GEF project portfolio in the 23 biome countries from GEF-4 to GEF-6, and on five in-depth country case studies selected based on the aggregate and geospatial analysis of the portfolio under review. The evaluation took a closer look at the determinants of sustainability by focusing on a cohort of projects completed between 2007 and 2014. This approach allowed for enough time after completion – five years for outcome sustainability– to be robustly re-visited and assessed. The evaluation questions were answered through a mixed-methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative analytical tools. This evaluation has reached the following conclusions, presented hereafter under six main headings corresponding to the main themes embedded in the evaluation questions. Overall Relevance to Country Environmental Priorities 124. GEF support to the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes increased consistently since the pilot phase onwards. Over the years, the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna countries have substantially benefited from GEF investments. From the pilot phase onwards, GEF support doubled every two replenishment periods, reaching over $600 million both in GEF-5 and GEF-6. Support continues to be strong, having reached $220 million plus an equivalent amount of additional set-aside funds at midway through GEF-7. GEF finance has leveraged several times the allocated STAR grants in additional cofinancing resources for its interventions. 125. GEF support addresses the main environmental challenges faced by countries in the two biomes, and there are no major gaps. This evaluation concludes that GEF support is well aligned and highly relevant to national environmental priorities in the two biomes’ countries. Most of the GEF support to these countries has focused on climate change, the underlying cause of most environmental challenges in the biomes. Seventy-eight percent of the climate change focal area support in the two biomes is invested in support to adaptation. Land degradation started to be addressed in GEF-4 through focal area-specific support and continued afterwards mainly through multifocal area interventions. Review of project documents in the

Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes portfolio and interviews with GEF focal points in case study countries strongly confirmed that GEF interventions are well aligned with the governments’ environmental priorities in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna. Staffs from the ministries of environment and related government institutions indicated that the GEF is an important source of environment funding contributing to national sustainable development planning. In the areas of institutional development and governance, an area in high need of both financial and technical support in the biomes and where the GEF concentrates most of its efforts, more than half of the projects reviewed focus on policy frameworks and skills building. Both areas, much in need in the biomes, can benefit from the institutional support provided by the GEF, which has largely demonstrated its comparative advantage and additionality in the other world regions where it intervenes. Relevance of the Financial and Technical Support Offered by the GEF to Countries in the two Biomes (Modality, Array of Services Offered by GEF Agencies, Intervention Typologies) 126. Relevance of GEF support has not been affected by the GEF move toward integrated programming, including through multifocal projects and programmatic approaches. Although investment in programs initially increased in GEF-4 and substantially decreased in GEF-5 and GEF-6, programs and their respective child projects are becoming larger in size, and a move from single focal area toward multifocal interventions is observed in the two biomes. This trend signals an important change in the way GEF programs are designed and implemented in this region, which is reflective of the GEF’s move toward integrated programming to achieve impact at scale and address the main drivers of environmental degradation. The increase in size of child projects is viewed favorably by country stakeholders, who tend to view projects in terms of the direct benefits they generate within the national boundaries. 127. There has been an expansion of coverage with new Agencies in the biome countries, a positive development in terms of more choice for countries and more diversity of expertise. A shift toward more diversity in GEF Agencies is observed from GEF-4 onward in the two biomes. This culminated in GEF-7, where for the first time in GEF history, the cumulative portfolio share of the three original GEF Agencies, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank, has gone under 50 percent. However, no clear trend emerges when considering GEF Agency’s comparative advantage in terms of specialized technical knowledge. Most Agencies active in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes have a rather diversified portfolio that covers all GEF focal areas. Importantly, countries select GEF Agencies based on a larger set of attributes than just their technical area of specialization, including, among other factors, the history of engagement between the GEF Agency and the country in which the project is going to be implemented. Overall Performance and Sustainability 128. Projects in the two biomes and in Africa are overall rated lower than the overall GEF portfolio. According to an analysis of the most recent APR available data from the 2019 cohort, completed projects in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes were rated lower in

terminal evaluations than projects in the Africa region and lower still than the overall GEF portfolio on all performance indicators. The same trend is observed when focusing on the two rating dimensions of interest in this evaluation, namely outcomes and sustainability. This finding supports previous findings from IEO performance as well as country portfolio analyses in SSA. Whereas projects in Africa tend to have lower ratings, more recent terminal evaluations of GEF-4 to GEF-6 projects in the biomes reported higher project ratings than those reported in terminal evaluations of earlier projects completed between 2007 and 2014, which is promising. 129. While 85 percent of multifocal projects had higher outcomes, only 38 percent had ratings in the satisfactory range for their likely sustainability. The multifocal cohort is the one that was rated the lowest compared with single focal area cohorts. Otherwise, the broader adoption analysis of completed projects reviewed for sustainability in the biomes indicates that for 73 percent of these projects no action was taken during implementation to stimulate broader adoption of outcomes postcompletion. Clearly, there is room for improvement on fostering broader adoption and likelihood of sustainability of project outcomes through consideration of sustainability measures at design in the biomes, especially in multifocal interventions. This is particularly important in consideration of the GEF move toward integrated programming and multifocal support. 130. Demonstrating sustainability takes time. A large part of the data gathering and analysis effort in this evaluation has focused on understanding what happens to the outcomes of GEF interventions a few years after completion. The results of this analysis confirmed a similar finding from both the APR 2017 and the recently completed SIDS SCCE, namely that projects tend to show higher observed sustainability of outcomes at postcompletion than at terminal evaluation stage. While it’s plausible that as time goes by, context related factors increasingly come into play as compared to project related ones, field observations in this evaluation underscored the importance of designing projects with due consideration of measures fostering the likely sustainability of outcomes postcompletion. Factors of Sustainability 131. Financial sustainability is an issue in SSA overall, which is particularly challenging in the biomes. This evaluation has found financial sustainability in the biome countries as the weakest among four dimensions, namely the financial, institutional, environmental and political. Likelihood of financial sustainability goes from 72 percent in the overall GEF-4 to GEF-6 portfolio down to 57 percent in Africa and 46 percent in the two biomes’ countries. Limited or lack of postproject financing has been confirmed as a major context-related hindering factor in five out of the six country case studies. These findings reiterate the importance of planning already at the design stage for setting up viable financial mechanisms and measures that take over from where the project outcomes left at completion and continue delivering benefits over time. Financial considerations are important also where strengthening of local institutions and capacities has succeeded. Despite the likelihood of institutional sustainability was the highest ranked sustainability dimension both in Africa and in the biomes (i.e., above 80 percent in both

cohorts), case studies pointed at several examples where the institutions have been strengthened but stopped short of funding postcompletion and could not continue operating. 132. Context-sensitive, technologically appropriate project design positively affects the sustainability of outcomes in the biomes. Design that promotes sustainability takes into due consideration the country socioeconomic and political context as well as the local conditions and knowledge, and includes measures and activities designed to support from both the financial and institutional standpoint the continued delivery of outcomes postcompletion. Field observations in this evaluation met with successful designs that included long-lasting infrastructure investments requiring limited associated operating costs, as well as missed opportunities from substantial investments in skills and capacities where the trainees cannot apply what they earned due to lack of funds postcompletion. 133. Designing profitable beneficiary-relevant alternative livelihood activities and working with existing institutions to include environmental considerations in local development plans emerged as new project-related sustainability factors in the biomes. These factors, not highlighted in previous IEO’s sustainability assessments, emerged both from the review of terminal evaluations of sustainability cohort projects and the postcompletion verifications conducted in the countries visited by this evaluation. Several country study examples—both in terms of successes as well as failures—confirmed the importance of designing profitable alternative livelihood activities that correspond as much as possible to the real needs in the everyday lives of beneficiaries. Small infrastructure operations and maintenance have demonstrated the dependence on it being within the financial reach of households. Local authorities met in Mali, Guinea and Guinea Bissau included environmental conservation activities in their commune and/or municipality sustainable development plans and budgets. 134. Not much consideration is given at project design to the influence that synergies and tradeoffs between socioeconomic and environmental objectives have on the prospects for sustainability in the biomes. While in general the socioeconomic priorities are considered by GEF interventions in the biomes, only a small percentage of design documents of projects in the relevance cohort discuss how to address synergies or mitigate tradeoffs between short- and long-term, environment, and development objectives. As highlighted in the introductory paragraphs of this conclusion chapter, in addition to sharing many common environmental challenges, the 23 countries in the two biomes also face pressing socioeconomic challenges, affecting the severity of the environmental issues at hand. National infrastructure and socioeconomic development investments are often given priority over environmental conservation initiatives. It is not surprising that findings from case studies and interviews conducted in this evaluation consistently indicate the importance of nexus thinking between environmental and socioeconomic objectives and between short-term and long-term planning in enhancing sustainability. Field observations provide several examples demonstrating that when alternate livelihood systems with a clear, positive environment/socioeconomic nexus were in place, the chances of sustainability of the environmental benefits generated by GEF

interventions was greater. Gender and Resilience 135. Gender considerations are increasingly incorporated within GEF interventions in the two biomes. Consistent with similar findings of previous IEO analyses, this evaluation confirms that in the two biomes’ countries, gender is considered during project implementation even when not specifically addressed at the design stage. This is demonstrated by the comparison between gender considerations assessed at entry and at completion, as well as from many examples field-verified in all the five country case studies. Gender considerations are important also in the discussion on factors for outcome sustainability. This evaluation has brought forward several examples confirming that when alternative livelihood activities were led by women, they tended to be more sustainable compared with men-controlled ones. 136. Resilience to climate risks is addressed in climate change adaptation projects mostly in the form of climate risk management and as a cobenefit. Promoting resilience to climate risks is a key aspect in the geographic region covered by this evaluation, as demonstrated by the large and growing number of adaptation interventions as well as the considerable amount of LDCF and SCCF funding in the two biomes. When looking at the entire portfolio covered by this evaluation, spanning from GEF-4 to GEF-6, a move to resilience considerations being integrated within the project’s multiple benefits framework is observed. Resilience considerations in the sustainability cohort projects focused on risk management and resilience as a cobenefit. Newer GEF projects, no matter the source of funding being from the main GEF Trust Fund, the LDCF or the SCCF, integrated resilience within the project’s multiple benefits framework. Fragility 137. Fragility has affected the timely delivery of GEF support but has mostly not impacted outcomes and sustainability of GEF support in the two biomes. Overall, the outcome and sustainability ratings show no difference between projects implemented in fragile countries in the biomes and those that were not. As observed in country visits in Mali, Guinea, and Mauritania, country insecurity and emergence of fragile situations can significantly delay implementation and outcomes. However, activities such as alternate livelihood systems that demonstrate to be financially viable and beneficiary-relevant tend to continue, especially when these are located away from capital cities. The negative effects of a sociopolitical crisis tend to occur in the capital and other urban areas, where most of the population resides. This evaluation found several examples in which the negative effects of suddenly emerged fragile situations have tended to be less felt in rural areas, on activities with a clear and tangible financial viability, and a high correspondence with a beneficiary need.

4.1 Lessons

138. A number of lessons can be derived from the above findings and conclusions to inform future GEF programming in the Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna biomes. Among these, the

following three lessons are particularly important at the project design stage: (1) Give due consideration to sustainability factors in project design and track them during implementation, (2) Take particular attention to financial sustainability in project design; and (3) Foster the synergies and mitigate the tradeoffs between environment and development objectives. A more general, yet equality important lesson is that the GEF should pay attention to the nature and degree of multidimensionality it incorporates in the design of its multifocal interventions, especially as it goes toward integrated programming to scale up and address the main drivers of environmental degradation. Most if not all these lessons have wider applicability to all the world regions where the GEF intervenes. The full range of lessons generated by this evaluation will feed into the seventh comprehensive evaluation of the GEF.

REFERENCES

Béné, Christophe, Rachel Godfrey Wood, Andrew J. Newsham, and Mark Davies, 2012. “Resilience: New Utopia Or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes.” IDS Working Paper 405. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Biggs, Eloise M., Eleanor Bruce, Bryan Boruff, John M.A. Duncan, Julia Horsley, Natasha Pauli, Kellie McNeill, Andreas Neef, Floris Van Ogtrop, Jayne Curnow, Billy Haworth, Stephanie Duce, Yukihiro Imanari. 2015. “Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods.” Environmental Science & Policy, 54: 389-397. Cutter, Susan L., Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric Tate, and Jennifer Webb. 2008. “A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters.” Global Environmental Change 18 (4): 598–606. Global Environment Facility (GEF). 2012. “Policy on Gender Mainstreaming.” SD/PL/02. GEF, Washington, DC. ______. 2015. The GEF and the Sustainable Development Goals. Washington, DC: GEF. ______. 2018. GEF-7 Programming Directions. Document Number GEF/R.7/19. Washington, DC: GEF. GEF Independent Evaluation Office (GEF IEO). 2009a. Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report (2009). Evaluation Report No. 50, Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2009b. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Benin (1991-2007). Evaluation Report No. 41, Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2009c. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992-2007). Evaluation Report No. 45, Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2013. OPS5 First Report: Cumulative Evidence on the Challenging Pathways to Impact. Evaluation Report No. 79, Washington DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2014a. Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2014. Evaluation Report No. 95. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2014b. OPS5 Report: At the Crossroads for Higher Impact. Evaluation Report No. 86, Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2015. Four-Year Work Program and Budget of the GEF Independent Evaluation Office – GEF-6. GEF/ME/C.48/01. ______. 2016a. Evaluation of the Expansion of the GEF Partnership - First Phase. Evaluation Report No. 131. Washington, DC: GEF IEO.

______. 2016b. Program Evaluation of the Least Developed Countries Fund. Evaluation Report No. 106. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2017. OPS6 Report: The GEF in the Changing Environmental Finance Landscape. Evaluation Report No. 110. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018a. Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming in the GEF. Evaluation Report No. 118. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018b. Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF. Evaluation Report No. 113. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018c. Formative Review of the Integrated Approach Pilot (IAP) Programs. Evaluation Report No. 126. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018d. Impact of GEF Support on National Environment Laws and Policies. Evaluation Report No. 129. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018e. Land Degradation Focal Area Study. Evaluation Report No. 120. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018f. Strategic Country Cluster Evaluations: Reference Group Meeting – June 6 2018. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018g. Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation: Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna Biomes - Approach Paper. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2018h. Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation: Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna Biomes - Selection of Case Study Countries. Washington DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2019a. Annual Performance Report 2017. Evaluation Report No. 136. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. ______. 2019b. “Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation: Sahel and Sudan-Guinea Savanna Biomes – Guidance Note for Country Case Studies.” GEF IEO, Washington, DC. ______. 2020. Strategic Country Cluster Evaluation: Small Island Developing States. Evaluation Report No. 140. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. GEF IEO and UNDP IEO (Independent Evaluation Office). 2015. Joint GEF-UNDP Evaluation of the Small Grants Programme. Evaluation Report No. 97. Washington, DC: GEF IEO. GEF STAP (Global Environment Facility Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel). 2014. Delivering Global Environmental Benefits for Sustainable Development. STAP Report to the 5th GEF Assembly, México, May 2014. Holling, C.S. 1973. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23. Kumssa, Asfaw, and John F. Jones. 2010. “Climate change and

human security in Africa.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 17, 453–461. Pelling, Mark. 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change. New York: Routledge. Trollope, Winston S.W., and Lynne A.Trollope. 2004. Prescribed burning in African grasslands and savannas for wildlife management. Arid Lands Newsletter, 55, May/June. UN (United Nations). 2013. Africa Renewal 2013. The Sahel: One region, many crises. New York: UN. UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2014. “International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005-2015 – Water and Cities.” New York: UN DESA. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2006. Africa Environment Outlook 2: Our Environment, Our Health, Nairobi: UNEP. ______. 2007. Global Environment Outlook GEO-4: Environment for Development, Nairobi: UNEP. ______. 2016. Africa Environment Outlook GEO-6: Regional Assessment for Africa, Nairobi: UNEP. ______. 2019. Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report, Nairobi: UNEP. UNEP DEWA (Division of Early Warning and Assessment). 2008. Africa: Atlas of our Changing Environment, Nairobi: UNEP-DEWA. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2013. West Africa Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment. Washington, DC: USAID. World Bank. 2015. Africa’s Population Boom: Will It Mean Disaster or Economic and Human Development Gains? Washington, DC: World Bank. ______. 2018. Harmonized List of Fragile Situations FY 18. Washington, DC: World Bank.

ANNEX 1: LIST OF PROJECTS REVIEWED

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 1234 WB Benin Guinean- Community-based Coastal and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Marine Biodiversity project Closed Sustainability Management Project 3704 UNDP Benin Guinean- Integrated Adaptation GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Programme to Combat the project Closed Effects of Climate Change on Agricultural Production and Food Security 3770 UNDP Benin Guinean- SPWA-BD: Incorporation of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Sacred Forests into the project Closed Protected Areas System of Benin 4756 FAO Benin Guinean- Disposal of POPs and Obsolete GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Pesticides and Strengthening project Implementation Life-cycle Management of Pesticides 5002 UNDP Benin Guinean- Strengthening Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Information and Early Warning project Closed Systems in Western and Central Africa for Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change 5215 WB Benin Guinean- GGW: Forests and Adjacent GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Lands Management Project project Implementation 5232 AfDB Benin Guinean- Flood Control and Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Resilience of Agriculture project Implementation Infrastructures in Oueme Valley 5431 UNDP Benin Guinean- Strengthening the Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah the Energy Sector in Benin to project Implementation the Impacts of Climate Change

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5752 UNDP Benin Guinean- Promotion of Sustainable GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Biomass-based Electricity project Implementation Generation in Benin 5807 UNEP Benin Guinean- Preparation of Benin's First GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Biennial Update Report (BUR1) activity Implementation to UNFCCC 6974 AfDB Benin Guinean- Improving Mobility in Parakou GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah project Implementation 1063 WB Cameroon Guinean- Forest and Environment GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Development Policy Grant project Closed Sustainability (FEDPG) 2549 WB Cameroon Guinean- Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Land Management Promotion project Closed Sustainability under the National Community Development Program Support Program (PNDP) 3821 FAO Cameroon Guinean- CBSP Sustainable Community GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Based Management and project Closed Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems in Cameroon 4084 WB Cameroon Guinean- CBSP Conservation and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Sustainable Use of the Ngoyla project Implementation Mintom Forest 4641 FAO Cameroon Guinean- Disposal of POPs and Obsolete GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Pesticides and Strengthening project Implementation Sound Pesticide Management 4674 UNEP Cameroon Guinean- Support to Cameroon for the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Revision of the NBSAPs and activity Implementation Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD 4739 UNEP Cameroon Guinean- Participative Integrated GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Ecosystem Services project Implementation Management Plans for Bakassi Post Conflict Ecosystems (PINESMAP-BPCE)

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 4785 UNIDO Cameroon Guinean- Promoting Integrated Biomass GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah and Small Hydro Solutions for project Implementation Productive Uses in Cameroon 4800 FAO Cameroon Guinean- Sustainable Forest GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management under the project Implementation Authority of Cameroonian Councils 5060 UNEP Cameroon Guinean- Developing Core Capacity for GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah MEA Implementation in project Implementation Cameroon 5210 UNEP Cameroon Guinean- Sustainable Farming and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance Savannah Critical Habitat Conservation to project Achieve Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Protected Areas Management Effectiveness in Western Cameroon SUFACHAC 5263 AfDB Cameroon Guinean- Enhancing the Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Poor Communities to Urban project Implementation Flooding in Yaounde 5367 UNEP Cameroon Guinean- PCB Reduction In Cameroon GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Through The Use Of Local project Implementation Expertise And The Development Of National Capacities 5796 UNDP Cameroon Guinean- A Bottom Up Approach to ABS: GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Community Level Capacity project Implementation Development for Successful Engagement in ABS Value Chains in Cameroon (Echinops giganteus) 9116 AfDB Cameroon Guinean- Promoting Access to GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Renewable Energy and project Implementation Development of IT Tools for

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Rural Communities of Cameroon 9155 UNDP Cameroon Guinean- Integrated and Transboundary GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah Conservation of Biodiversity in project Endorsed the Basins of the Republic of Cameroon 9172 UNEP Cameroon Guinean- Development of Minamata GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Initial Assessment in Cameroon activity Implementation 9470 AfDB Cameroon Guinean- LCB-NREE Cameroon child GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah project: Improving Agro- project Endorsed Pastoral Systems in the Far North Region of Cameroon 5163 UNIDO Central Guinean- Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance African Savannah and Update the National activity Implementation Republic Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5504 AfDB Central Guinean- Reducing Rural and Urban GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance African Savannah Vulnerability to Climate project Implementation Republic Change by the Provision of Water Supply 9532 AfDB Central Guinean- LCB-NREE CAR child project: GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance African Savannah Enhancing Agro-ecological project Implementation Republic Systems in Northern Prefectures of the Central African Republic (CAR) 3533 WB Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Protected Area Project (Projet GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah d'Appui a la Relance de la project Closed Sustainability Conservation des Parcs et Reserves, PARC-CI) 3876 UNEP Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- SPWA-CC: Promotion of Energy GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Efficiency Lighting in Public, project Implementation Commercial and Residential Buildings

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 4005 UNIDO Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- SPWA-CC: Promoting GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Renewable Energy-based Grids project Closed in Rural Communities for Productive Uses 4693 UNEP Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Support to CÃ´te d’Ivoire for GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah the Revision of the NBSAPs and activity Implementation Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD 4970 UNEP Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Integrated Management of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Protected Areas in Cote project Implementation d'Ivoire, West Africa 5101 UNDP Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Strengthened Environmental GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Management Information project Closed System for Coastal Development to Meet Rio Convention Objectives 5362 WB Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Obsolete Pesticides GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management Project project Implementation 5500 UNIDO Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Enabling Ctivities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5788 UNEP Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Assessment of Land GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance Savannah Degradation Dynamic in Coffee project -Cocoa Production and Northern Ivory Coast to Promote SLM Practices and Carbon Stock Conservation ALDD SLM CSC 9130 AfDB Cote d'Ivoire Guinean- Cities-IAP: Abidjan Integrated GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Sustainable Urban Planning project Implementation and Management

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 2794 WB Ethiopia Guinean- SIP: Country Program for GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Sustainable Land Management project Closed Sustainability (ECPSLM) 3154 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Coping with Drought and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Climate Change project Closed Sustainability 3367 IFAD Ethiopia Guinean- SIP: Community-Based GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Integrated Natural Resources project Implementation Management in Lake Tana Watershed 3736 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Mainstreaming Agro- GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah biodiversity Conservation into project Closed the Farming Systems of Ethiopia 4091 UNEP Ethiopia Guinean- Capacity Building for Access GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah and Benefit Sharing and project Implementation Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants 4222 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Promoting Autonomous GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Adaptation at the community project Closed level in Ethiopia 4992 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Strengthening Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Information and Early Warning project Closed Systems to Support Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change 5040 UNIDO Ethiopia Guinean- Investment Promotion on GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Environmentally sound project Closed Management of Electrical and Electronic Waste: Up-Scale and Promotion of Activities and Initiatives on Environmentally Sound Management of Electrical and Electronic Waste. 5107 UNIDO Ethiopia Guinean- Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah and Update the National activity Implementation

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5220 WB Ethiopia Guinean- PSG: Sustainable Land GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management Project 2 project Implementation 5440 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Mainstreaming Incentives for GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Biodiversity Conservation in project Implementation the Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE) 5501 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Promoting Sustainable Rural GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Energy Technologies (RETs) for project Implementation Household and Productive Uses 6967 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- CCA Growth: Implementing GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Climate Resilient and Green project Implementation Economy plans in highland areas in Ethiopia 9048 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Ethiopian Urban NAMA: GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Creating Opportunities for project Implementation Municipalities to Produce and Operationalise Solid Waste Transformation (COMPOST) 9135 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Food-IAP: Integrated GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Landscape Management to project Implementation Enhance Food Security and Ecosystem Resilience 9157 UNDP Ethiopia Guinean- Enhanced Management and GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah Enforcement of Ethiopia's project Endorsed Protected Areas Estate 1067 WB Gambia Guinean- Integrated Coastal and Marine GEF-2 (1998-2002) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Biodiversity Management project Closed Sustainability 3135 UNEP Gambia Guinean- Adoption of Ecosystem GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Approach for Integrated project Closed Sustainability

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Implementation of MEAs at National and Divisional Level 3368 AfDB Gambia Guinean- SIP: Participatory Integrated GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Watershed Management project Closed Project (PIWAMP) 3728 UNEP Gambia Guinean- Strengthening of The Gambia’s GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Climate Change Early Warning project Closed Systems 3922 UNIDO Gambia Guinean- SPWA-CC: Promoting GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Renewable Energy Based Mini project Closed Grids for Productive Uses in Rural Areas in The Gambia 3961 WB Gambia Guinean- SPWA - The Gambia GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Biodiversity Management and project Closed Sustainability Institutional Strengthening Project 4724 UNDP Gambia Guinean- Enhancing Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Vulnerable Coastal Areas and project Implementation Communities to Climate Change in the Republic of Gambia 5071 UNEP Gambia Guinean- Strengthening Climate Services GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah and Early Warning Systems in project Implementation the Gambia for Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change â€“ 2nd Phase of the GOTG/GEF/UNEP LDCF NAPA Early Warning Project 5406 FAO Gambia Guinean- Community-Based Sustainable GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Dryland Forest Management project Implementation 5529 UNDP Gambia Guinean- Gambia Protected Areas GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Network and Community project Implementation Livelihood Project

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5609 UNIDO Gambia Guinean- Greening the Productive GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Sectors in Gambia: Promoting project Implementation the Use and Integration of Small to Medium Scale Renewable Energy Systems in the Productive Uses 5782 FAO Gambia Guinean- Adapting Agriculture to Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Change in the Gambia project Implementation 136 WB Ghana Guinean- Natural Resource Management GEF -1 (1994-1998) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah project Closed Sustainability 777 WB Ghana Guinean- Northern Savanna Biodiversity GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Conservation (NSBC) Project project Closed Sustainability 2183 WB Ghana Guinean- Community-based Integrated GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Natural Resources project Closed Sustainability Management Project in Okyeman 2402 UNDP Ghana Guinean- Sustainable Land Management GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah for Mitigating Land project Closed Sustainability Degradation, Enhancing Agricultural Biodiversity and Reducing Poverty (SLaM) 2785 UNDP Ghana Guinean- Capacity Building for PCB GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Elimination project Closed 3004 UNEP Ghana Guinean- Review of the National GEF-4 (2006-2010) Enabling Council Approved Relevance Savannah Biodiversity Strategy, activity Development of the Action Plan and Participation in the National Clearing House Mechanism 3126 UNDP Ghana Guinean- Establishing an Effective and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Sustainable Structure for project Closed Sustainability Implementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 3218 UNDP Ghana Guinean- Integrating Climate Change GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah into the Management of project Closed Priority Health Risks 3369 WB Ghana Guinean- SIP: Sustainable Land GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management in Ghana project Implementation 3836 WB Ghana Guinean- SPWA-BD: Management of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Riparian Biological Corridors project Implementation 4368 IFAD Ghana Guinean- Promoting Value Chain GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Approach to Adaptation in project Closed Agriculture 4528 WB Ghana Guinean- West Africa Regional Fisheries GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Program in Ghana project Implementation 5138 UNEP Ghana Guinean- Support to Ghana for the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Revision of the National activity Implementation Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAPs and Development of Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 5221 WB Ghana Guinean- PSG-Additional financing - GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Sustainable Land and Water project Implementation Management Project 5445 UNEP Ghana Guinean- Preparation of Ghana's Initial GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Council Approved Relevance Savannah Biennial Update Report to activity UNFCCC 9171 UNEP Ghana Guinean- Enabling Preparation of GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Ghana's Fourth National activity Implementation Communication (NC4) and Second Biennial Update Report (BUR2) to UNFCCC 9340 WB Ghana Guinean- Food-IAP: Sustainable Land and GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Water Management Project, project Implementation Second Additional Financing

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 9381 UNDP Ghana Guinean- Development of Minamata GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Convention Initial Assessment activity Implementation (MIA) for Ghana 8 WB Guinea Guinean- Rural Energy GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah project Closed Sustainability 1273 WB Guinea Guinean- Coastal Marine and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Biodiversity Management project Closed Sustainability 1877 WB Guinea Guinean- Community-based Land GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Management project Closed Sustainability 3703 UNDP Guinea Guinean- Increased Resilience and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Adaptation to Adverse Impacts project Closed of Climate Change in Guinea's Vulnerable Coastal Zones 3958 UNIDO Guinea Guinean- SPWA-CC: Promoting GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Development of Multi-Purpose project Implementation Mini-hydro Power Systems 4667 UNDP Guinea Guinean- National Biodiversity Planning GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah to Support the Implementation activity Implementation of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Guinea 4692 UNDP Guinea Guinean- Strengthening Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Farming Communities' project Closed Livelihoods against Climate Changes in the Guinean Prefectures of Gaoual, Koundara and Mali 5041 UNDP Guinea Guinean- Strengthening Decentralized GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management of the project Implementation Environment to Meet Rio Convention Objectives 5153 UNIDO Guinea Guinean- Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Completed / Relevance Savannah and Update the National activity Closed Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5289 UNDP Guinea Guinean- Developing a Market for Biogas GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Resource Development and project Implementation Utilization in Guinea 5382 UNDP Guinea Guinean- Ecosystem-Based Adaptation GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Targeting Vulnerable project Implementation Communities of the Upper Guinea Region 1221 WB Guinea- Guinean- Coastal and Biodiversity GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Bissau Savannah Management Project project Closed Sustainability 3575 UNDP Guinea- Guinean- SPWA-BD: Support for the GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Bissau Savannah Consolidation of a Protected project Closed Area System in Guinea-Bissau's Forest Belt 3817 WB Guinea- Guinean- SPWA-BD: Guinea Bissau GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Bissau Savannah Biodiversity Conservation Trust project Closed Sustainability Fund Project 4019 UNDP Guinea- Guinean- Strengthening Resilience and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Bissau Savannah Adaptive Capacity to Climate project Implementation Change in Guinea-Bissau’s Agrarian and Water Sectors 5331 UNIDO Guinea- Guinean- Promoting Investments in GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Bissau Savannah Small to Medium Scale project Implementation Renewable Energy Technologies in the Electricity Sector 5368 UNDP Guinea- Guinean- Strengthening the Financial GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Bissau Savannah and Operational Framework of project Implementation the National PA System in Guinea-Bissau 1475 WB Liberia Guinean- Establishing the Basis for GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Biodiversity Conservation on project Closed Sustainability Sapo National Park and in South-East Liberia

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 3284 WB Liberia Guinean- Consolidation of Liberia's GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Protected Area Network project Closed Sustainability 3837 WB Liberia Guinean- SPWA-BD: Biodiversity GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Conservation through project Closed Expanding the Protected Area Network in Liberia (EXPAN) 3885 UNDP Liberia Guinean- Enhancing Resilience of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Vulnerable Coastal Areas to project Implementation Climate Change Risks 3944 UNIDO Liberia Guinean- SPWA-CC: Installation of multi GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah purpose mini-hydro project Implementation infrastructure (for energy & irrigation ) 4268 UNDP Liberia Guinean- Enhancing Resilience to GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Climate Change by project Implementation Mainstreaming Adaption Concerns into Agricultural Sector Development in Liberia 4950 UNDP Liberia Guinean- Strengthening Liberia’s GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Capability to Provide Climate project Implementation Information and Services to Enhance Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change 5108 UNIDO Liberia Guinean- Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5712 CI Liberia Guinean- Improve Sustainability of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Mangrove Forests and Coastal project Implementation Mangrove Areas in Liberia through Protection, Planning and Livelihood Creation- as a

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Building Block Towards Liberia’s Marine and Costal Protected Areas 8015 UNDP Liberia Guinean- Enhancing Resilience Of Liberia GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Montserrado County project Implementation Vulnerable Coastal Areas To Climate Change Risks 9292 AfDB Liberia Guinean- Increasing Energy Access GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah through the Promotion of project Endorsed Energy Efficient Appliances in Liberia 942 WB Nigeria Guinean- : Local Empowerment and GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Environmental Management project Closed Sustainability Project - Micro Watershed and Environmental Management Project 1503 WB Nigeria Guinean- National Fadama Development GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Program II (NFDP II): Critical project Closed Sustainability Ecosystem Management 2828 WB Nigeria Guinean- Rural Electrification and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Renewable Energy project Closed Sustainability Development 3384 WB Nigeria Guinean- SIP: Scaling up SLM Practice, GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Knowledge, and Coordination project Closed Sustainability in Key Nigerian States 3794 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- SPWA-CC: Promoting Energy GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Efficiency in Residential and project Closed Public Sector in Nigeria 3804 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- Less Burnt for a Clean Earth: GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Minimization of Dioxin project Closed Emission from Open Burning Sources 3827 WB Nigeria Guinean- SPWA-CC: Nigeria Urban GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Transport project Closed

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 3943 UNIDO Nigeria Guinean- SPWA-CC: Mini-grids based on GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Renewable Energy (small- project Implementation hydro and biomass) Sources to Augment Rural Electrification 4090 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- SPWA-BD: Niger Delta GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Biodiversity Project project Implementation 4100 WB Nigeria Guinean- PCB Management and Disposal GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Project project Closed 4439 GEF Nigeria Guinean- GEF National Portfolio GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Completed / Relevance Secretariat Savannah Formulation Document activity Closed 4671 UNEP Nigeria Guinean- Support to Nigeria for the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Revision of the NBSAPs and activity Implementation Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD 4907 WB Nigeria Guinean- GGW: Nigeria Erosion and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Watershed Management project Implementation Project (NEWMAP) 5167 UNIDO Nigeria Guinean- Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5345 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- De-risking Renewable Energy GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah NAMA for the Nigerian Power project Implementation Sector 5375 UNIDO Nigeria Guinean- Scaling up Small Hydro Power GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah (SHP) in Nigeria project Implementation 5745 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- Sustainable Fuelwood GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management in Nigeria project Implementation 5777 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- Preparation of Third National GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Communication (TNC) to the activity Implementation UNFCCC and Capacity Strengthening on Climate Change

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5871 UNIDO Nigeria Guinean- Minamata Convention Initial GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Assessment in the Federal activity Implementation Republic of Nigeria 6976 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- Nigeria's First Biennial Update GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Report activity Implementation 9143 UNDP Nigeria Guinean- Food-IAP: Integrated GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah Landscape Management to project Endorsed Enhance Food Security and Ecosystem Resilience in Nigeria 9161 AfDB Nigeria Guinean- LCB-NREE: Nigeria Child GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Project: Comprehensive and project Implementation Integrated Management of Natural Resources in Borno State 9358 UNIDO Nigeria Guinean- National Action Plan on GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Mercury in the Nigerian activity Implementation Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining sector 3937 UNIDO Sierra Leone Guinean- SPWA-CC: Promoting Mini GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Grids Based on Small project Implementation Hydropower for Productive Uses in Sierra Leone 4105 WB Sierra Leone Guinean- SPWA-BD: Wetlands GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Conservation Project project Closed 4599 UNDP Sierra Leone Guinean- Building Adaptive Capacity to GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Catalyze Active Public and project Implementation Private Sector Participation to Manage the Exposure and Sensitivity of Water Supply Services to Climate Change in Sierra Leone 4840 UNDP Sierra Leone Guinean- Energy Efficient Production GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah and Utilization of Charcoal project Implementation through Innovative

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Technologies and Private Sector Involvement 5006 UNDP Sierra Leone Guinean- Strengthening Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Information and Early Warning project Implementation Systems in Africa for Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change 5209 AfDB Sierra Leone Guinean- Building Resilience to Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Change in the Water and project Implementation Sanitation Sector 9454 UNEP Sierra Leone Guinean- Development of Minamata GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Initial Assessment and National activity Implementation Action Plan for Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining in Sierra Leone 5907 UNEP South Sudan Guinean- Support to South Sudan for the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Pending Approval Relevance Savannah Revision of the NBSAPs and activity Development of Fifth National Report to the CBD 4026 UNDP Togo Guinean- SPWA-BD: Strengthening the GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Conservation Role of Togo's project Closed National System of Protected Areas (PA) 4570 IFAD Togo Guinean- Adapting Agriculture GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Production in Togo (ADAPT) project Closed 4765 UNDP Togo Guinean- Strengthening National and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Decentralized Management for project Closed Global Environmental Benefits 5035 UNIDO Togo Guinean- Enabling activities to review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah and update the national activity Implementation implementation plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5279 AfDB Togo Guinean- Strengthening Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Resilience of Infrastructure in project Implementation Coastal Areas in Togo 5850 UNDP Togo Guinean- Togo's First Biennial Update GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Report (FBUR) activity Implementation 1175 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Conservation of Biodiversity in GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah the Albertine Rift Forest Areas project Closed Sustainability of Uganda 1830 WB Uganda Guinean- Protected Areas Management GEF -1 (1994-1998) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah and Sustainable Use (PAMSU) project Closed Sustainability 1837 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Extending Wetland protected GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Areas through Community project Closed Sustainability Based Conservation Initiatives 3392 WB Uganda Guinean- SIP: Sustainable Land GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management Country Program project Implementation 3393 UNDP Uganda Guinean- SIP: Enabling Environment for GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah SLM to overcome land project Closed degradation in the cattle corridor of Uganda 3682 UNEP Uganda Guinean- Developing an Experimental GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Savannah Methodology for Testing the project Closed Sustainability Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Enhance Conservation in Productive Landscapes in Uganda 3854 UNEP Uganda Guinean- Development of a National GEF-4 (2006-2010) Enabling Completed / Relevance Savannah Clearing House Mechanism activity Closed and Capacity Assessment for Taxonomy and Indigenous Knowledge(Add-on) (New title as of March 19, 2009) 4456 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Conservation and Sustainable GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Use of the Threatened Savanna project Implementation Woodland in the Kidepo

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Critical Landscape in North Eastern Uganda 4644 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Addressing Barriers to the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Adoption of Improved Charcoal project Implementation Production Technologies and Sustainable Land Management Practices through an Integrated Approach 4993 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Strengthening Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Savannah Information and Early Warning project Closed Systems in Africa to Support Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change 5042 UNEP Uganda Guinean- Support to Alignment of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah Uganda’s National Action activity Implementation Programme and Reporting Process to the UNCCD Ten- Year Strategy 5204 AfDB Uganda Guinean- Building Resilience to Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Change in the Water and project Implementation Sanitation Sector 5603 UNIDO Uganda Guinean- Reducing Vulnerability of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Banana Producing project Implementation Communities to Climate Change Through Banana Value Added Activities - Enhancing Food Security And Employment Generation 5625 UNIDO Uganda Guinean- Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Savannah and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5718 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Integrated Landscape GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Savannah Management for Improved project Implementation Livelihoods and Ecosystem Resilience in Mount Elgon 9137 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Food-IAP: Fostering GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Savannah Sustainability and Resilience project Implementation for Food Security in Karamoja Sub Region 9210 UNDP Uganda Guinean- NAMA on Integrated Waste GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah Management and Biogas in project Endorsed Uganda 9335 UNDP Uganda Guinean- Strengthening Institutional GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Savannah Capacity for Effective project Endorsed Implementation of Rio Conventions in Uganda 876 WB Burkina Faso Sahel Partnership for Natural GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Ecosystem Management project Closed Sustainability Program (PAGEN) 1178 WB Burkina Faso Sahel Sahel Integrated Lowland GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Ecosystem Management project Closed Sustainability (SILEM), Phase I 2876 WB Burkina Faso Sahel SPWA-CC: Ouagadougou GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Transport Modal Shift project Closed 3567 IFAD Burkina Faso Sahel CPP: Burkina Faso - Sub- GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and programme of the Northern project Closed Sustainability Region-under Partnership Programme for Sustainable Land Management 3684 UNDP Burkina Faso Sahel Strengthening Adaptation GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Capacities and Reducing the project Closed Vulnerability to Climate Change in Burkina Faso 4073 UNDP Burkina Faso Sahel SPWA-CC: Promotion of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Jatropha Curcas as a project Implementation

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Sustainable Source of Agrofuel in Burkina-Faso 4221 UNDP Burkina Faso Sahel SPWA-BD: Protected Area GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Buffer Zone Management in project Closed Burkina Faso 4285 UNIDO Burkina Faso Sahel Promoting Energy Efficiency GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Technologies in Beer Brewing project Closed Sector in Burkina Faso 4767 UNDP Burkina Faso Sahel Capacity Development : GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Generating Global project Implementation Environmental Benefits from Improved Local Planning and Decision-making Systems in Burkina Faso 4971 UNDP Burkina Faso Sahel Adapting Natural Resource GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Dependent Livelihoods to project Implementation Climate induced Risks in Selected Landscaqpes in Burkina Faso: the Boucle du Mouhoun Forest Corridor and the Mare d'Oursi Wetlands Basin 5003 UNDP Burkina Faso Sahel Strengthening Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Information and Early Warning project Implementation Systems in Africa for Climate Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change - Burkina Faso 5014 FAO Burkina Faso Sahel Integrating Climate Resilience GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance into Agricultural and Pastoral project Implementation Production for Food Security in Vulnerable Rural Areas Through the Farmers Field School Approach.

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5061 UNIDO Burkina Faso Sahel Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5187 WB Burkina Faso Sahel GGW: Community based Rural GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Development Project 3rd project Implementation Phase with Sustainable Land and Forestry Management 9141 IFAD Burkina Faso Sahel GEF-IAP: Participatory Natural GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Resource Management and project Implementation Rural Development Project in the North, Centre-North and East Regions (Neer Tamba project) 9711 UNIDO Burkina Faso Sahel National Action Plan on GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Mercury in the Artisanal and activity Implementation Small-Scale Gold Mining Sector in Burkina Faso 1855 WB Chad Sahel Community-Based Ecosystem GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Management Project project Closed Sustainability 3959 UNIDO Chad Sahel SPWA-CC: Promoting GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance renewable energy based mini- project Closed grids for rural electrification and productive uses 5376 IFAD Chad Sahel Enhancing the Resilience of the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Agricultural Ecosystems project Implementation 5795 UNIDO Chad Sahel Promoting Energy Efficient GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Cook Stoves in Micro and project Implementation Small-scale Food Processing Industries 9100 UNIDO Chad Sahel Minamata Convention Initial GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Assessment in Chad activity Implementation

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 9476 AfDB Chad Sahel LCB-NREE Chad Child Project: GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Integrated Management of project Implementation Natural Resources in the Chadian part of the Lake Chad Basin 3139 UNIDO Eritrea Sahel Enabling Activities to Facilitate GEF-4 (2006-2010) Enabling Under Relevance Early Action on the activity Implementation Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs 3362 IFAD Eritrea Sahel SIP: Catchments and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Landscape Management project Closed 3364 UNDP Eritrea Sahel SIP: Sustainable Land GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Management Pilot Project project Closed 3987 FAO Eritrea Sahel Eritrea: Prevention and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Disposal of POPs and Obsolete project Closed Pesticides 4559 UNDP Eritrea Sahel Integrated Semenawi and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Debubawi Bahri-Buri-Irrori- project Implementation Hawakil Protected Area System for Conservation of Biodiversity and Mitigation of Land Degradation 5389 UNEP Eritrea Sahel Support to Eritrea for the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Council Approved Relevance Revision of the NBSAPs and activity Development of Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 5616 UNIDO Eritrea Sahel Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 6923 UNDP Eritrea Sahel Mainstreaming Climate Risk GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Considerations in Food Security project Implementation

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID and IWRM in Tsilima Plains and Upper Catchment Area 9641 UNEP Eritrea Sahel Development of Minamata GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Initial Assessment and National activity Implementation Action Plan for Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining in Eritrea 1152 IFAD Mali Sahel Biodiversity Conservation and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Participatory Sustainable project Closed Sustainability Management of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta and its Transition Areas, Mopti Region 1253 WB Mali Sahel Gourma Biodiversity GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Conservation Project project Closed Sustainability 1274 WB Mali Sahel Household Energy and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Universal Rural Access Project project Closed Sustainability 3377 WB Mali Sahel SIP: Fostering Agricultural GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Productivity in Mali project Implementation 3699 UNDP Mali Sahel SPWA-CC: Promotion of the GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Use of Agrofuels from the project Closed Production and Use of Jatropha Oil in Mali 3763 UNDP Mali Sahel SPWA-BD: Expansion and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Strengthening of Mali's PA project Closed System 3776 UNDP Mali Sahel Enhancing Adaptive Capacity GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Resilience to Climate project Closed Change in the Agriculture Sector in Mali 3979 FAO Mali Sahel Integrating Climate Resilience GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance into Agricultural Production for project Closed Food Security in Rural Areas 4429 GEF Mali Sahel GEF National Portfolio GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Completed / Relevance Secretariat Formulation Document activity Closed

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 4822 FAO Mali Sahel Strengthening Resilience to GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Climate Change through project Implementation Integrated Agricultural and Pastoral Management in the Sahelian zone in the Framework of the Sustainable Land Management Approach 5192 UNDP Mali Sahel Strengthening the Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Women Producer Group’s and project Implementation Vulnerable Communities in Mali 5270 WB Mali Sahel GGW Natural Resources GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Management in a Changing project Implementation Climate in Mali 5443 UNDP Mali Sahel Third National Communication GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance to the UNFCCC activity Implementation 5644 UNIDO Mali Sahel Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the Republic of Mali 5746 UNEP Mali Sahel Scaling up and Replicating GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance Successful Sustainable Land project Management (SLM) and Agroforestry Practices in the Koulikoro Region of Mali 5819 UNDP Mali Sahel Promoting Sustainable GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Electricity Generation in Malian project Implementation Rural Areas through Hybrid Technologies 6971 UNDP Mali Sahel Generating Global GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Environment Benefits through project Implementation Improved Environmental

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Information, Planning and Decision Making Systems 2459 WB Mauritania Sahel Community-based Watershed GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Management Project project Closed Sustainability 3379 IFAD Mauritania Sahel SIP: Participatory GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Environmental Protection and project Closed Sustainability Poverty Reduction in the Oases of Mauritania 3893 IFAD Mauritania Sahel Support to the Adaptation of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Vulnerable Agricultural project Endorsed Production Systems 5190 AfDB Mauritania Sahel Improving Climate Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Water Sector Investments with project Implementation Appropriate Climate Adaptive Activities for Pastoral and Forestry Resources in Southern Mauritania 5580 UNEP Mauritania Sahel Development of an Improved GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance and Innovative Management project Endorsed System for Sustainable Climate-resilient Livelihoods in Mauritania 5639 UNEP Mauritania Sahel Stocktaking and Update of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance National Biosafety Framework project for Mauritania 5769 UNDP Mauritania Sahel Promoting Sustainable Mini- GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance grids in Mauritanian Provinces project Through Hybrid Technologies 5792 WB Mauritania Sahel PSG-Sustainable Landscape GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Management Project under project Implementation SAWAP 8029 WB Mauritania Sahel West Africa Regional Fisheries GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Program SOP C1 project Implementation 1275 WB Niger Sahel Community-based Integrated GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Ecosytem Management project Closed Sustainability

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Program under the Community Action Program 2380 UNDP Niger Sahel Sustainable Co-Management of GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and the Natural Resources of the project Closed Sustainability Air-Tenere Complex 3381 UNDP Niger Sahel SIP: Oasis Micro-Basin Sand GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Invasion Control in the Goure project Closed and Maine Regions (PLECO) 3382 WB Niger Sahel SIP: Community Driven SLM for GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Environmental and Food project Closed Sustainability Security 3383 IFAD Niger Sahel SIP: Agricultural and Rural GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Rehabilitation and project Closed Development Initiative (ARRDI) 3760 UNDP Niger Sahel SPWA-BD: Integrating the GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Sustainable Management of project Closed Faunal Corridors into Niger's Protected Area System 3796 UNDP Niger Sahel SPWA-CC: Integration of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Greenhouse Gas Emission project Closed Reductions in Niger's Rural Energy Service Access Program 4701 UNDP Niger Sahel Scaling up Community-Based GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Adaptation (CBA) in Niger project Implementation 4702 FAO Niger Sahel Integrating Climate Resilience GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance into Agricultural and Pastoral project Implementation Production for Food Security in Vulnerable Rural Areas through the Farmers Field School Approach 5436 WB Niger Sahel Disaster Risk Management and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Urban Development Project project Implementation 5493 UNIDO Niger Sahel Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 9136 IFAD Niger Sahel Niger: Food-IAP: Family GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Farming Development project Implementation Programme (ProDAF) 9497 AfDB Niger Sahel LCB-NREE Niger child project: GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Improving Sustainable project Implementation Management of Natural Resources in Niger’s Diffa Region 921 WB Senegal Sahel Electricity Services for Rural GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Areas Project project Closed Sustainability 1189 WB Senegal Sahel Integrated Marine and Coastal GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Resource Management Project project Closed Sustainability 2268 UNDP Senegal Sahel SIP: Integrated Ecosystem GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Management in Four project Closed Sustainability Representative Landscapes of Senegal, Phase 2 3385 WB Senegal Sahel SIP: Sustainable Land GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Management in Senegal project Closed Sustainability 3386 UNDP Senegal Sahel SIP: Innovations in Micro GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Irrigation for Dryland Farmers project Closed 4055 UNDP Senegal Sahel TT-Pilot (GEF-4): Technology GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Transfer: Typha-based Thermal project Implementation Insulation Material Production in Senegal 4080 UNDP Senegal Sahel SPWA-BD: Participatory GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Biodiversity Conservation and project Closed Low Carbon Development in Pilot Ecovillages in Senegal 4095 UNDP Senegal Sahel SPWA-CC: National GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Under Relevance Greenhouse Gas Reduction project Implementation Program Through Energy

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Efficiency in the Built Environment 4888 UNIDO Senegal Sahel Environmentally Sound GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Management of Municipal and project Implementation Hazardous Solid Waste to Reduce Emission of Unintentional POPs 5371 AfDB Senegal Sahel Project for the Restoration and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Strengthening the Resilience of project Implementation the Lake de Guiers Wetland Ecosystems (PRRELAG) 5449 WB Senegal Sahel PSG- Sustainable and Inclusive GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Agribusiness Development project Implementation Project 5469 UNIDO Senegal Sahel Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 5503 FAO Senegal Sahel Mainstreaming Ecosystem- GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance based Approaches to Climate- project Implementation resilient Rural Livelihoods in Vulnerable Rural Areas through the Farmer Field School Methodology 5566 UNDP Senegal Sahel Strengthening Land & GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Ecosystem Management Under project Implementation Conditions of Climate Change in the Niayes and Casamance regions- Republic of Senegal 5802 UNEP Senegal Sahel Promoting SLM Practices to GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance Restore and Enhance Carbon project Stocks through Adoption of Green Rural Habitat Initiatives

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 9123 WB Senegal Sahel Cities-IAP: Sustainable Cities GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Initiative project Implementation 9134 IFAD Senegal Sahel Food-IAP: Agricultural Value GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Chains Resilience Support project Implementation Project (PARFA) 3430 UNDP Sudan Sahel Implementing NAPA Priority GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Interventions to Build project Closed Resilience in the Agriculture and Water Sectors to the Adverse Impacts of Climate Change 3748 UNDP Sudan Sahel Protected Area Network GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Management and Building project Closed Capacity in Post-conflict Southern Sudan 3915 IFAD Sudan Sahel Integrated Carbon GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Sequestration Project in Sudan project Closed 4745 UNDP Sudan Sahel Promoting Utility-Scale Power GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Generation from Wind Energy project Implementation 4958 UNDP Sudan Sahel Climate Risk Finance for GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Sustainable and Climate project Implementation Resilient Rainfed Farming and Pastoral Systems 5019 UNDP Sudan Sahel National Biodiversity Planning GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Completed / Relevance to Support the implementation activity Closed of the CBD 2011-2020 Strategic Plan in Sudan 5030 UNIDO Sudan Sahel Enabling Activities to Review GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance and Update the National activity Implementation Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5619 WB Sudan Sahel GGW Sudan Sustainable GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Natural Resources project Implementation Management Project SSNRMP 5651 IFAD Sudan Sahel Livestock and Rangeland GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Resilience Program project Implementation 5673 UNDP Sudan Sahel Promoting the Use of Electric GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Water Pumps for Irrigation project Implementation 5703 UNEP Sudan Sahel Enhancing the Resilience of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Communities Living in Climate project Implementation Change Vulnerable Areas of Sudan Using Ecosystem Based Approaches to Adaptation (EbA) 9108 UNDP Sudan Sahel Third National Communication GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance (TNC) and First Biennial Update activity Implementation Report (BUR) 9345 UNIDO Sudan Sahel Minamata Convention: Initial GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance assessment in the Republic of activity Implementation Sudan 9501 AfDB Sudan Sahel Rural Livelihoods' Adaptation GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance to Climate Change in the Horn project Endorsed of Africa - Phase II (RLACC II) 457 UNDP Regional Conservation of Biodiversity GEF -1 (1994-1998) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and through Participatory project Closed Sustainability Rehabilitation of Degrade Land in Arid and Semi-Arid Cross- Border Zones of Mauritania and Senegal 504 UNEP Regional management of Indigenous GEF-2 (1998-2002) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Vegetation for the project Closed Sustainability Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 1093 WB Regional Reversing Land and Water GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Degradation Trends in the project Closed Sustainability Niger River Basin 1111 UNEP Regional Addressing Transboundary GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Concerns in the Volta River project Closed Sustainability Basin and its Downstream Coastal Area 1216 UNEP Regional Building Scientific and GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Technical Capacity for Effective project Closed Sustainability Management and Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity in West African Biosphere Reserves 1258 UNEP Regional Enhancing Conservation of the GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Critical Network of Sites of project Closed Sustainability Wetlands Required by Migratory Waterbirds on the African/Eurasian Flyways. 1325 WB Regional Institutional Strengthening and GEF-2 (1998-2002) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Resource Mobilization for project Closed Sustainability Mainstreaming Integrated Land and Water Management Approaches into Development Programs in Africa 1348 WB Regional Africa Stockpiles Program, P1 GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and project Closed Sustainability 1420 UNEP Regional Reducing Dependence on POPs GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and and other Agro-Chemicals in project Closed Sustainability the Senegal and Niger River Basins through Integrated Production, Pest and Pollution Management 1909 FAO Regional Protection of the Canary GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Current Large Marine project Implementation Ecosystem (LME)

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 2041 UNEP Regional Managing Hydrogeological Risk GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and in the Iullemeden Aquifer project Closed Sustainability System 2129 UNEP Regional Demonstrating and Capturing GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Best Practices and project Closed Sustainability Technologies for the Reduction of Land-sourced Impacts Resulting from Coastal Tourism 2139 FAO Regional SIP: Transboundary Agro- GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Ecosystem Management project Closed Programme for the Kagera River Basin (Kagera TAMP) 2140 UNEP Regional Removing Barriers to Invasive GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Plant Management in Africa project Closed Sustainability 2184 UNEP Regional SIP: Stimulating Community GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Initiatives in Sustainable Land project Closed Sustainability Management (SCI-SLM) 2396 UNEP Regional Dryland Livestock Wildlife GEF-3 (2002-2006) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Environment Interface Project project Closed Sustainability (DLWEIP) 2546 UNEP Regional Demonstration of Sustainable GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Alternatives to DDT and project Implementation Strengthening of National Vector Control Capabilities in Middle East and North Africa 2584 UNDP Regional Nile Transboundary GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Environmental Action Project project Closed Sustainability (NTEAP), Phase II 2586 UNDP Regional PAS: Implementing Sustainable GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Integrated Water Resource and project Closed Sustainability Wastewater Management in the Pacific Island Countries - under the GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 2614 UNDP Regional Adaptation to Climate Change - GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Responding to Shoreline project Closed Sustainability Change and its human dimensions in West Africa through integrated coastal area management. 2720 UNIDO Regional Develop Appropriate Strategies GEF-3 (2002-2006) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and for Identifying Sites project Closed Sustainability Contaminated by Chemicals listed in Annex A, B and/or C of the Stockholm Convention 2770 UNEP Regional Demonstration of a Regional GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Approach to Environmentally project Implementation Sound Management of PCB Liquid Wastes and Transformers and Capacitors Containing PCBs 2820 UNEP Regional Supporting the Development GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Implementation of Access project Closed and Benefit Sharing Policies in Africa 2865 UNIDO Regional Promotion of Strategies to GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Reduce Unintentional project Closed Sustainability Production of POPs in the PERSGA Coastal Zone 2906 UNDP Regional CBSP Sustainable Financing of GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Protected Area Systems in the project Implementation Congo Basin 3101 UNDP Regional Pacific Adaptation to Climate GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Change Project (PACC) project Closed Sustainability 3321 UNDP Regional Mainstreaming Groundwater GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Considerations into the project Closed Integrated Management of the Nile River Basin

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 3346 UNEP Regional DSSA Malaria Decision Analysis GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Support Tool (MDAST): project Closed Sustainability Evaluating Health Social and Environmental Impacts and Policy Tradeoffs 3398 WB Regional SIP: Eastern Nile GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Transboundary Watershed project Closed Management in Support of ENSAP Implementation 3401 UNEP Regional SIP: Equatorial Africa GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Deposition Network (EADN) project Implementation 3522 UNDP Regional CTI Arafura and Timor Seas GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Ecosystem Action Programme project Closed (ATSEA) - under the Coral Triangle Initiative 3591 ADB Regional PAS: Strengthening Coastal and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Marine Resources project Implementation Management in the Coral Triangle of the Pacific - under the Pacific Alliance for Sustainability Program 3619 FAO Regional CTI Strategies for Fisheries GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Bycatch Management project Closed 3664 UNEP Regional PAS: Prevention, Control and GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Management of Invasive Alien project Closed Species in the Pacific Islands 3673 UNEP Regional Supporting the GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Implementation of the Global project Closed Monitoring Plan of POPs in Eastern and Southern African Countries 3674 UNEP Regional Supporting the GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Implementation of the Global project Closed Monitoring Plan of POPs in West Africa

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 3779 WB Regional CBSP Enhancing Institutional GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Capacities on REDD issues for project Implementation Sustainable Forest Management in the Congo Basin 3781 UNEP Regional SPWA-BD: Evolution of PA GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance systems with regard to climate project Closed change in the West Africa Region 3809 WB Regional Red Sea and Gulf of Aden GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Strategic Ecosystem project Implementation Management 3822 UNEP Regional CBSP - A Regional Focus on GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Sustainable Timber project Implementation Management in the Congo Basin 3788 UNEP Regional LGGE Promoting Energy GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Efficiency in Buildings in project Closed Eastern Africa 3960 WB Regional CBSP-Capacity Building for GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance and Regional Coordination of project Closed Sustainability Sustainable Forest Management in the Congo Basin under the GEF Program for the Congo Basin 3968 UNEP Regional AFLDC: Capacity Strengthening GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Technical Assistance for project Closed the Implementation of Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs) in African Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the COMESA Subregion 3969 UNEP Regional AFLDC: Capacity Strengthening GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance and Technical Assistance for project Closed

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID the Implementation of Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs) in African Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the ECOWAS Subregion 3984 FAO Regional SPWA-BD: Development of a GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Trans-frontier Conservation project Closed Area Linking Forest Reserves and Protected Areas in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire 4023 UNEP Regional PAS: Implementing the Island GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Completed / Relevance Biodiversity Programme of project Closed Work by Integrating the Conservation Management of Island Biodiversity 4066 UNEP Regional PAS: Pacific POPs Release GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance Reduction Through Improved project Implementation Management of Solid and Hazardous Wastes 4074 WB Regional Africa Stockpiles Program (ASP) GEF-4 (2006-2010) Full-sized Under Relevance - Project 1- Supplemental project Implementation Funds for Disposal and Prevention 4178 UNIDO Regional SPWA-CC Promoting GEF-4 (2006-2010) Medium-sized Under Relevance Coherence, Integration and project Implementation Knowledge Management under Energy Component of SPWA 4523 UNEP Regional Support to Preparation of the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Second National Biosafety project Implementation Reports to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety-Africa 4569 UNIDO Regional Improve the Health and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Environment of Artisanal and project Closed

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Small Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) Communities by Reducing Mercury Emissions and Promoting Sound Chemical Management 4611 UNDP Regional Reducing UPOPs and Mercury GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Releases from the Health project Implementation Sector in Africa 4668 UNEP Regional Demonstration of Effectiveness GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance of Diversified, Environmentally project Implementation Sound and Sustainable Interventions, and Strengthening National Capacity for Innovative Implementation of Integrated Vector Management (IVM) for Disease Prevention and Control in the WHO AFRO Region 4740 FAO Regional Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance including POPs and project Implementation Strengthening Pesticide Management in the Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) Member States 4746 UNDP Regional Implementation of Global and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Regional Oceanic Fisheries project Implementation Conventions and Related Instruments in the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) 4748 UNDP Regional Improving Lake Chad GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Management through Building project Endorsed Climate Change Resilience and Reducing Ecosystem Stress through Implementation of the SAP Minamata Convention:

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID Initial Assessment in Cabo Verde and Sao Tome and Principe 4886 UNEP Regional Continuing Regional Support GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance for the POPs Global Monitoring project Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention in the Africa Region 4940 WB Regional Implementation of the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Strategic Action Programme project Implementation for the Protection of the Western Indian Ocean from Land-based Sources and Activities (WIO-SAP) 4953 IUCN Regional Mano River Union Ecosystem GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Conservation and International project Implementation Water Resources Management (IWRM) Project 5133 WB Regional Senegal River Basin Climate GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Change Resilience project Implementation Development Project 5195 UNEP Regional Building National and Regional GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Capacity to Implement MEAs project Implementation by Strengthening Planning, and State of Environment Assessment and Reporting in the Pacific Islands 5404 UNDP Regional R2R: Testing the Integration of GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Water, Land, Forest & Coastal project Implementation Management to Preserve Ecosystem Services, Store Carbon, Improve Climate Resilience and Sustain Livelihoods in Pacific Island Countries

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 5454 UNEP Regional Ratification and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance Implementation of the Nagoya project Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) for the Member Countries of the Central African Forests Commission COMIFAC 5487 AfDB Regional Integrated Development for GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Increased Rural Climate project Endorsed Resilience in the Niger Basin 5513 UNDP Regional Western Indian Ocean Large GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Marine Ecosystems Strategic project Endorsed Action Programme Policy Harmonization and Institutional Reforms (SAPPHIRE) 5633 UNEP Regional Lead Paint Elimination Project GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance in Africa project Implementation 5634 UNEP Regional Ratification and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Council Approved Relevance Implementation of the Nagoya project Protocol in the Countries of the Pacific Region 5674 AfDB Regional Lakes Edward and Albert GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized Under Relevance Integrated Fisheries and Water project Implementation Resources Management Project 5798 FAO Regional Adaptive Management and GEF-5 (2010-2014) Medium-sized Under Relevance Monitoring of the Maghreb's project Implementation Oases Systems 5860 UNEP Regional Development of Minamata GEF-5 (2010-2014) Enabling Under Relevance Convention on Mercury Initial activity Implementation Assessment in Africa 6944 UNEP Regional Development of Minamata GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Convention on Mercury Initial activity Implementation Assessment in Africa

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 6964 WB Regional Volta River Basin Strategic GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Action Programme project Implementation Implementation Project 6982 UNDP Regional Enhancing Capacity to Develop GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Completed / Relevance Global and Regional project Closed Environmental Projects in the Pacific 9080 UNEP Regional Integrated Health and GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Environment Observatories project Implementation and Legal and Institutional Strengthening for the Sound Management of Chemicals in Africa (African ChemObs) 9098 UNIDO Regional Minamata Convention Initial GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Assessment in Francophone activity Implementation Africa II 9101 UNIDO Regional Minamata Convention Initial GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Assessment in Francophone activity Implementation Africa I 9118 UNEP Regional Support to Preparation of the GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Third National Biosafety project Implementation Reports to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - AFRICA REGION 9173 UNEP Regional Development of Minamata GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Convention Mercury Initial activity Implementation Assessment in Africa 9276 UNEP Regional Regional Project on the GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Development of National activity Implementation Action Plans for the Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Africa 9360 WB Regional West Africa Regional Fisheries GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized Under Relevance Program, Additional project Implementation Financingâ€Ž

Project Agency Country Biome Project Name GEF Replenishment Project type Project Status Type of Review ID 9446 AfDB Regional Regional Project for the GEF-5 (2010-2014) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Conservation and Sustainable project Endorsed Development of Lake Chad: Enhancing Transboundary Cooperation and Integrated Water Resources Management in the Lake Chad Basin 9491 UNDP Regional Mainstreaming Conservation of GEF-6 (2014-2018) Full-sized CEO Approved / Relevance Migratory Soaring Birds into project Endorsed Key Productive Sectors along the Rift Valley / Red Sea Flyway (Tranche II of GEFID 1028) 9533 UNEP Regional Development of National GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Under Relevance Action Plan for Artisanal and activity Implementation Small Scale Gold Mining Mali and Senegal 9547 UNEP Regional Development of National GEF-6 (2014-2018) Enabling Cancelled Relevance Action Plan for Artisanal and activity Small Scale Gold Mining in Guinea and Niger 9817 UNEP Regional Support to Eligible Parties to GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Produce the Sixth National project Implementation Report to the CBD (Africa-1) 9824 UNEP Regional Support to Eligible Parties to GEF-6 (2014-2018) Medium-sized Under Relevance Produce the Sixth National project Implementation Report to the CBD (Africa-2)

ANNEX 2: LIST OF COUNTRY CASE STUDIES AND PROJECTS VISITED

Country Agency 1. Focal GEF Type Title / ID Area Phase GUINEA 2. 1093 WB/ UNDP 3. IW GEF-3 Reg. Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin 1273 WB 4. BD GEF-3 FSP Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management 1877 WB 5. LD GEF-3 FSP Community-based Land Management 3703 UNDP 6. A GEF-4 FSP Increased Resilience and Adaptation to Adverse Impacts of Climate Change in Guinea’s Vulnerable Coastal Zones 4692 UNDP 7. A GEF-5 FSP Strengthening resilience of communities’ livelihoods against climate changes in Gaoual, Koundara and Mali UGANDA 8. 1175 UNDP BD GEF-3 FSP Conservation of Biodiversity in the Albertine Rift Forest Protected Areas 1830 WB BD GEF-1 FSP 1830 Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use (PAMSU) 2140 UNEP BD GEF-3 Reg. Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa 3393 UNDP LD GEF-4 FSP SIP: Enabling Environment for SLM to Overcome Land Degradation in the Cattle Corridor of Uganda 4644 UNDP MF GEF-5 FSP Addressing Barriers to Adoption of Improved Charcoal Production Technologies and SLM 5718 UNDP MF GEF-5 FSP Integrated landscape management for improved livelihoods and ecosystem resilience in Mount Elgon NIGERIA 942 WB BD GEF-3 FSP Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project 1503 WB LD GEF-3 FSP National Fadama Development Program II: Critical Ecosystem Management Project 1258 UNEP BD GEF-3 Reg. Enhancing Conservation of Network of Wetlands Required by Migratory Water Birds on African/Eurasian Flyways 4090 UNDP BD GEF-4 FSP Niger Delta Biodiversity Project 4907 WB LD GEF-5 FSP GGW: Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project MALI 1152 IFAD BD GEF-3 FSP BD Conservation and Participatory SM of Natural Resources in the Inner Niger Delta, Mopti Region 1253 WB 9. BD GEF-2 FSP Gourma Biodiversity Conservation 1420 UNEP 10. MF GEF-3 Reg. Reducing Dependence on POPs and Other Agro-Chemicals in the Senegal and Niger River Basins through IPPM 3377 WB/UNDP 11. LD GEF-4 FSP Strategic Investment Plan - Fostering Agricultural Productivity in Mali 3763 UNDP 12. BD GEF-4 FSP SPWA-BD: Expansion and Strengthening of Mali's Protected Area System 3979 FAO 13. A GEF-4 FSP Integrating Climate Resilience into Agricultural Production for Food Security in Rural Areas 5270 WB 14. MF GEF-5 FSP GGW- Natural Resources Management in a Changing Climate in Mali MAURITANIA 15. 1258 UNEP BD GEF-3 Reg. Enhancing Conservation of Network of Wetlands Required by Migratory Water Birds on African/Eurasian Flyways 2459 WB 16. LD GEF-3 FSP Community-based Watershed Management Project 2614 UNDP 17. A GEF-3 Reg. Responding to Shoreline Change and Its Human Dimensions in West Africa through Integrated Coastal Area Management 3379 IFAD 18. LD GEF-4 FSP SIP: Participatory Environmental Protection and Poverty Reduction in the Oases of Mauritania 3893 IFAD 19. A GEF-4 FSP Support to the Adaptation of Vulnerable Agricultural Production Systems 5190 AfDB 20. A GEF-5 FSP Improving Climate Resilience of Water Sector Investments with Appropriate Climate Adaptive Activities for Pastoral and Forestry Resources in Southern Mauritania

ANNEX 3: SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS OBSERVED IN COUNTRY CASE STUDIES (cells containing the same factor are identified with the same color)

Mauritania Mali Nigeria Guinea Guinea Bissau Uganda Contributing Factors 1. Good project design (long lasting 1. Beneficiary relevant, cost effective 1. Good project design (long lasting 1. Working with existing decentralized 1. Stakeholder engagement during 1. Alignment with national priorities infrastructure as birdwatching ALS with positive Env&Dev nexus infrastructure as Ibbi Eco Center at institutions through local dev. Plans implementation (all projects) (including with national hideouts, earth bunds and small rock under individual rather than Park boundary; establishment of the (GEF projects CMBMP and CLMP environmental threats) dams in the farmers' fields, fencing to community management (rock bunds SLBCOF a trust fund for ALSs, requiring working with WB project PACV and the control livestock, solar water in and live fences around crop fields contributions from the three ongoing decentralization dynamic pumping systems) maintained by individual families; participating states to the four PAs. supported by the 15% mining tax biological dune fixation; Bourgou Fund transferred to the National Parks channeled to local development plans natural regeneration giving livestock Service) through ANAFIC) feeds, increased fishing and facilitating the return of migrating birds; Gourma Elephants PA small ruminants, market gardens, credit associations), all of which work 2. Beneficiary relevant, cost effective 2.despite Appropriate insecurity technology (IPPM/bio- 1. Beneficiary relevant, cost effective 2. Partnering with a national program 2. Supporting local community 2. Good project design (several ALS with positive Env&Dev nexus in pesticides reducing pest control costs, ALS with positive Env&Dev nexus with a strong track record (PACV, now institutions based on their own examples from GEF IDs 1830 and 1175 the short to medium term improving farmers' health, and under individual rather than becomed the national investment priorities (GEF IDs 1221, of long lasting infrastructure and increasing biodiversity; IPPM works community management (Tunga Bali decentralization agency, ANAFIC) partly 1188 and 2614 established a equipment; relevant normative despite weak interest by the National fruits orchard, animal fattening partnership relation based ono trust support, data and information, Directorate for Agriculture, which is group, motorbike loans, some of and strong stakeholder engagement, capacity building) still pushing for use of chemical pest which scaled up and/or replicated) i.e. always using local park rangers) control) 3. Working with existing decentralized 2. ALS requiring minimum post project 3. Beneficiary relevant, cost effective 3. Integrating women in groups (water 3. Stakeholder engagement at design

Project-related institutions through local dev. Plans maintenance, but yielding economic ALS with positive Env&Dev nexus pumps, agriculture, other) and during implementation (all (Great Green Wall examples) benefits over time (cashew, oil palm, (examples from CLMP include the projects at district and commune rubber and cocoa planted orchards; partial success of the ecosystem levels; GEF ID 2014 community-based Teak and Gmelina woodlots to a approach applied in Tolo, Bafing lake) trainers remained in the community lesser extent as needs longer time to after closure; multi-ministry mature) coordination at central level) 4 Promoting women-led ALS (fish 4. Promoting women-led ALS (fish 4. Establishment of a BD Conservation 4. Promoting self-financing aspects for smoking Chockor ovens) smoking units, gardening in Trust Fund (The Guinea-Bissau BD parks internal revenue generation Tougnifily, Mounafanyi group in Conservation Trust Fund that was (GEF ID 1830: increased revenue from Mamou) established under GEF ID 3817) gate collections, donations, boat 5. Creation of a local inter-communes 5. Creation of a local inter-communes rides, game drives, and the like is institution (the PA monitoring and institution for SLM (introduced by used to run park activities and management Association - AIG - of the CLMP, each participating commune maintain vehicles) Gourma elephant PA) earmarks a certain amount of budget from their local development plans to transboundary waterashed SLM) 1. Beneficiaries' post project financing 1. Govt. post project financing (to AIG 1. Govt. post-project financing (NPS 1. Donors' post project financing (CC 1. Existing protected areas regulation 1. Post project follow up of selected (small technology/ appropriate for Gourma PA) funding the Ibbi Eco Center; NPS adaptation support highly relevant (communities inside the parks should technologies and practices (Govt. infrastructure in the short to medium securing additional federal funding nationally, RAZC and RADCC follow up not have higher poverty rate than agencies, i.e. National Forestry term) for SLBCOF; Kotopo organic fertilizer projects) those outside) Authority (NFA) and DWD continued plant; others) providing tree seedlings from GEF ID 2. Post project follow up of selected 1175; other follow-on GEF and non- technologies and practices (Govt. GEF supported projects scaled up agencies and/or GEF and non-GEF some of the previously promotes funding) technologies and practices) 2. Local level technicians retained in 2. GEF and other donors post project 2. Local level technicians retained in 3. Strong political support (GEF

Context-related local Govt. offices financing through follow up projects local Govt. offices by the new supported national BD agency (IBAP), (2013 GEF Scaling up SLM project, decentralization agency ANAFIC Tourism & Agriculture Ministries World Bank FADAMA III) recognise BD concerns) 98

Mauritania Mali Nigeria Guinea Guinea Bissau Uganda Hindering Factors 1. Poor project design (cost-ineffective 1. Poor project design (non compliance with 1. Poor project design (too complex business 1. Poor project design (selecting farming 1. Limited local stakeholder engagement at 1. Projects not institutionalized in line training as ecotourist guides as there was no PA regulations, lack and/or inadequate centers, communities afraid of bees, areas with scarce ground water resources; design (especially for regional GEF IDs 1188 Ministries (despite involvement of national demand for these services; rock dams on stakeholder consultation in Nema wula and community vs individual management, inappropriate technology, i.e. coastal dams, and 2614, which gave a slow start that agencies for implementation; GEF ID 1175 gulleys too technically complex/labor Mandé wula PAs, and basing the use of these inappropriate technology, lack of funds by improved stoves, cooling unit, fish smoking resulted in extension of the implementation hired external technicians rather than intensive for beneficiaries to maintain; drip PAs on hinting rather than ecotourism, all of beneficiaries to replace worn out equipment units, iodine silt, others) periods) seconding Ministry staff for implementation irrigation and other motorized water which caused their rejection by the local parts) (those technicians were not adsorbed in pumping systems too complex/costly to populations) relevant Govt. institutions post completion). operate and maintain; dune fixation too 2. ALS not cost effective for beneficiaries in 2. ALS not cost effective for beneficiaries in 2. Insufficient environmental awareness 2. Insufficient and/or poorly designed ALS costly/labor intensive) the long term (mills and equipment for the long term (small livestock ALS like snails, raising (efforts didn't change local (GEF ID 3393, not providing short term processing for which beneficiaries have not grass cutters and apiaries have largely failed communities and teachers attitudes. Large compensation for the benefits foregone by been able to generate operating and/or – service providers had limited technical amounts of garbage are observed in front of abandoning depletion practices) capital replacement funds, also because they knowledge, so beneficiaries’ learning was the schools, as awareness raising and waste did not receive proper technical and limited) collection haven't been integrated in managerial training) curricula)

Project-related 2. ALS not cost effective for beneficiaries in 3. Absence of Env&Dev nexus (mechanization 2. Community rather than individual ALS 3. Lengthy GEF project cycle (GEF funding for 3. Lengthy GEF project cycle (delays in design the long term (beneficiaries, who have not of hay making of Bourgou for livestock (group ownership may cause delays: BD trust Fund delays disincentivating Govt. for all projects, GEF ID 1175 was deeply been able to generate operating and/or feeding failed as the operation of the plantations must have timely weeding, funding) affected) capital replacement funds) equipment was not cost effective, and husbandry of animals must be timely and replanting of forests with Doums Palms regular: groups may not respond when due (Hyphaene thebaica) failed because their because of different commitment levels. Oil establishment was difficult for farmers and palm plantations, although community growth takes a long time) owned, are managed by individuals) 1. No post project funding to maintain 1. Insecurity affecting PA management 1. Short term profit seeking economic 1. Govt. priorities favoring economic 1. Govt. priorities favoring economic 1. Govt. priorities favoring economic infrastructure (both from Govt/ and donors) (Gourma elephant PA staff relocated to activities (cattle rearers, logging activities) development over conservation (mining) development over BD conservation (IBAP development over conservation (central, Bamako since 2012, solar panel boreholes only exception) district and commune levels with the push vandalized) towards oil and mining explorations in PAs, GEF ID 1175) 2. Insecurity (2008 coup d'êtat, terrorist 2. Limited post project funding 2. Demographic pressures (high farming 2. Political interference and weak 2. Limited/no Govt. post-project financing 2. Political interference and weak attacks hindering tourists attraction to oases density, bush burning for wildlife hunting) enforcement of laws and policies (mining (IBAP and other PA activities, including enforcement of laws and policies (when and protected areas) concessions, charcoal) national parks and Ramsar sites are 100% people are told to move out of PAs, they move donor-funded) back towards elections and politicians protect them: L. Mburo park de-gazetted areas, GEF IDs 1830, 1175) 3. Central level project staffs not adsorbed in 3. Migrants from Nigeria conflict-affected 3. Limited Govt. post-project financing 3. Weak enforcement of protected areas 3. Limited Govt. post-project financing relevant Govt. institutions (MDR, MoE) states entering the Ibbi reserve to poach and (national and district levels) (cropping in protected areas by foreigners in (several examples at national and district exploit resources Senegal, Guinea, illegal hunters and levels from all projects) 4. Govt. uncontrolled private investments in 4. Insecurity (2008 PACV stop for 2 years) fishermen, often armed) 4. Institutional changes (GEF support to the coastal areas (buildings for tourism on land UWA, GEF ID 1830, resulted into strategic where dune fxation for coastal protection plans and management systems still used was built) several years later. PAMSU supported the Wildlife Education Centre, still in operation today. The transition of UWA from a Govt. to an agency for regulating tourism undermined Context-related these results) 5. Govt. uncontrolled private investments in 5. Unfavorable land tenure systems (where coastal areas (building/tourism) people were renting land hindered sustainability, land owners wanted to get back the land back after seeing good profits from it. Insecure land tenure also hindered planting trees in GEF IDs 1175, 3393 and 6.4644) Demographic pressure (where by people own small pieces of land which leads to encroaching on PAs for settlement, cultivation and grazing, GEF IDs 1830, 1175). 7. Prolonged dry weather (Lake Mburo lost 90% of the trees planted in recent years, GEF IDs 1830 and 1175)

ANNEX 4: CLASSIFICATION OF FRAGILE AND CONFLICT-AFFECTED SITUATIONS IN THE BIOMES

FY18 Peacekeeping Fragile Fragile Fragile Fragile Country FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 (PK)/Peacebuilding & TREND (FY06) (FY07) (FY08) (FY09) Political Mission (P) Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Marginal 3.429 Central African Republic Severe Severe Core Core 2.671 2.775 2.850 2.84 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.42 2.45 P (0.0548) Chad Marginal Core Core Core 2.813 2.792 2.742 2.80 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.02 2.99 0.0335 Cote d'Ivoire Core Severe Core Core 2.70 2.867 2.842 2.85 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.46 3.53 PK 0.1111 Eritrea Core Core Core Core 2.392 2.283 2.271 2.15 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.02 1.99 (0.0482) Ethiopia Gambia Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal 3.250 3.2 3.02 2.93 PK (0.0341) Ghana Guinea Core Core Core Core 3.083 2.979 3.050 3.08 0.0062 Guinea-Bissau Core Core Core Core 2.788 2.850 2.950 3.04 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.60 2.54 P (0.0480) Liberia Severe Severe Core Core 3.125 3.232 3.271 3.38 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.28 3.23 PK 0.0090 Mali 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.53 3.55 PK (0.0370) Mauritania Marginal Niger Nigeria Core Marginal Senegal Sierra Leone Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal 3.217 3.334 3.312 3.33 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.29 3.28 P 0.0028 Somalia Severe Severe Core Core 1.13 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.47 P 0.0409 South Sudan 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.92 1.72 PK (0.1240) Sudan Core Core Core Core 2.604 2.513 2.525 2.48 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.49 2.51 PK (0.0079) Togo Core Severe Core Core 2.800 2.913 2.971 2.94 3.1 3.1 3.10 3.11 0.0361 Uganda Source: World Bank 2018. Note: FY=fiscal year.

100